The Ultimate pro-WalMart Article

[Woodruff]

Besides, Walmart is doing quite well on their own of driving away customers because of their refusal to schedule enough workers to keep cash registers flowing and shelves stocked. That had started even before I left, but only appears to have become much more pronounced.

I have to admit this is one part of their strategy I've not understood. I realize that customer service hasn't really been a part of their business model since probably Sam Walton left the company, but this doesn't make sense to me. As tremendous as their logistics system is (and it is), if they would simply apply those exact same methodologies to their staffing, this wouldn't even be an issue AND they'd be just as money-making (due to accessing more of their customers money more quickly).

Actually, they DO try to apply those same systems to their staffing, which is why you have what you have now. There were constant issues with non-store higher ups or even computers putting together staffing numbers and schedules with local managers only being allowed to make small tweaks to the schedule. It assumes that all people are exactly equal in their productivity and that the system can account for historical trends better than the local people.

Interesting. I guess I can see how that could result in the poor manning issue, without the aid of human flexibility. I guess I always saw the flexibility in their logistics (which is great) and presumed that flexibility would also reside in the manning view.

[Woodruff]

First thing that pops in mind: Isn't this assuming wages are completely elastic? Is there not a minimum wage level under which people are unwilling to go regardless of the employment situation (because, for instance, going lower would mean they starve)?

I don't follow. If your choice is between having no money and starving, or having a little money and starving a little less, aren't you going to choose the latter?

Wal-Mart depends on the government to make up the difference. Yes, DEPENDS ON IT. Advertises for it in the workplace, actually. So at a certain point of lowering wages, workers are just going to go full-bore on the government welfare rather than accept the poverty wage plus some government welfare.

I don't ever recall seeing such advertisements within Walmart.

That's because you have not applied to Walmart for work.

Umm...in the just-previous post of Night Strike's that you also responded to, he stated quite clearly that he has worked there.

[Woodruff]

I also doubt this guy would be able to tell me how Wal-Mart's discrimination of female workers adds to how it's one of the best things for our economy.

He referenced it...according to him, it was based on ignorance and didn't really happen.

[Woodruff]

Is it really just about the relatively lesser quality of wal-mart's products? Perhaps those shoppers wish to spend the cost-savings on things they deem more important. Why judge them for that?

Then, why judge some poorer people with less disposable income? If you'd like, you can have them purchase more local stuff at higher prices because that'll be helpful to them... (we know how well total autarky works too!).

Sure, and that is exactly why, even though I completely boycott Wal-Mart (among others), I have no problem with those WHO NEED TO shopping there. Wal-Mart does allow many people to get by who may not be able to otherwise, so I'm ok with them shopping there. I do get annoyed with those who don't need to do so...doing so, though.

[john9blue]

Is it really just about the relatively lesser quality of wal-mart's products? Perhaps those shoppers wish to spend the cost-savings on things they deem more important. Why judge them for that?

Then, why judge some poorer people with less disposable income? If you'd like, you can have them purchase more local stuff at higher prices because that'll be helpful to them... (we know how well total autarky works too!).

Sure, and that is exactly why, even though I completely boycott Wal-Mart (among others), I have no problem with those WHO NEED TO shopping there. Wal-Mart does allow many people to get by who may not be able to otherwise, so I'm ok with them shopping there. I do get annoyed with those who don't need to do so...doing so, though.

what if they want to support a business which helps people who rely on their low-price business model?

[Woodruff]

Is it really just about the relatively lesser quality of wal-mart's products? Perhaps those shoppers wish to spend the cost-savings on things they deem more important. Why judge them for that?

Then, why judge some poorer people with less disposable income? If you'd like, you can have them purchase more local stuff at higher prices because that'll be helpful to them... (we know how well total autarky works too!).

Sure, and that is exactly why, even though I completely boycott Wal-Mart (among others), I have no problem with those WHO NEED TO shopping there. Wal-Mart does allow many people to get by who may not be able to otherwise, so I'm ok with them shopping there. I do get annoyed with those who don't need to do so...doing so, though.

what if they want to support a business which helps people who rely on their low-price business model?

Obviously, people have the option of shopping there...it's not like I'm standing outside the door with a battleaxe (no wife jokes here!). For those who I know who might fit that description, I would simply do my best to educate them about the realities of the business model.

[PLAYER57832]

I also doubt this guy would be able to tell me how Wal-Mart's discrimination of female workers adds to how it's one of the best things for our economy.

Oh, but see women cannot be counted upon because they have kids...

OOPS That is the argument against women getting well paying jobs, not the Walmart dregs.

[PLAYER57832]

First thing that pops in mind: Isn't this assuming wages are completely elastic? Is there not a minimum wage level under which people are unwilling to go regardless of the employment situation (because, for instance, going lower would mean they starve)?

I don't follow. If your choice is between having no money and starving, or having a little money and starving a little less, aren't you going to choose the latter?

Wal-Mart depends on the government to make up the difference. Yes, DEPENDS ON IT. Advertises for it in the workplace, actually. So at a certain point of lowering wages, workers are just going to go full-bore on the government welfare rather than accept the poverty wage plus some government welfare.

I don't ever recall seeing such advertisements within Walmart.

OK, but not sure how he missed it, then.

That's because you have not applied to Walmart for work.

Umm...in the just-previous post of Night Strike's that you also responded to, he stated quite clearly that he has worked there.

[PLAYER57832]

Obviously, people have the option of shopping there...it's not like I'm standing outside the door with a battleaxe (no wife jokes here!). For those who I know who might fit that description, I would simply do my best to educate them about the realities of the business model.

The real problem is that fewer and fewer people HAVE the option, because Walmart's tactics have so driven down the cost of goods that alternatives cannot stay in business. Also, they are a major contributor to the "race to the bottom" for low skill wages.

[Woodruff]

Obviously, people have the option of shopping there...it's not like I'm standing outside the door with a battleaxe (no wife jokes here!). For those who I know who might fit that description, I would simply do my best to educate them about the realities of the business model.

The real problem is that fewer and fewer people HAVE the option, because Walmart's tactics have so driven down the cost of goods that alternatives cannot stay in business.

The option always exists for those who are not at poverty level, even if it means going to a neighboring city to buy groceries (which is what my parents do). I hardly make a significant salary as a teacher, and I do not shop at Wal-Mart nor any other similar store at all. It simply requires making the decision not to do so.

[PLAYER57832]

Obviously, people have the option of shopping there...it's not like I'm standing outside the door with a battleaxe (no wife jokes here!). For those who I know who might fit that description, I would simply do my best to educate them about the realities of the business model.

The real problem is that fewer and fewer people HAVE the option, because Walmart's tactics have so driven down the cost of goods that alternatives cannot stay in business.

The option always exists for those who are not at poverty level, even if it means going to a neighboring city to buy groceries (which is what my parents do). I hardly make a significant salary as a teacher, and I do not shop at Wal-Mart nor any other similar store at all. It simply requires making the decision not to do so.

A lot of people today ARE at poverty level. Beyond that, it depends on access. I shop at my local grocery store, and buy clothes either used or at sales in various stores. Our income is below the poverty level, but I am very good at "stretching".

The other issue is that even those alternatives often are only marginally true alternatives. For example, here we can shop at Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid or the local grocery or one local pharmacy that has a few non-essentials in the style of older drugstores. (gifts and such).

[Woodruff]

Obviously, people have the option of shopping there...it's not like I'm standing outside the door with a battleaxe (no wife jokes here!). For those who I know who might fit that description, I would simply do my best to educate them about the realities of the business model.

The real problem is that fewer and fewer people HAVE the option, because Walmart's tactics have so driven down the cost of goods that alternatives cannot stay in business.

The option always exists for those who are not at poverty level, even if it means going to a neighboring city to buy groceries (which is what my parents do). I hardly make a significant salary as a teacher, and I do not shop at Wal-Mart nor any other similar store at all. It simply requires making the decision not to do so.

A lot of people today ARE at poverty level.

Yes, they are...and? Your contention that alternatives cannot stay in business is not particularly accurate in that Wal-Mart does not exist in every city and town. I understand what you're trying to say, but you're saying it very poorly.

Beyond that, it depends on access. I shop at my local grocery store, and buy clothes either used or at sales in various stores. Our income is below the poverty level, but I am very good at "stretching".

So? I'm failing to see the relevance. I'm talking about people who really have little option financially. You obviously have options.

The other issue is that even those alternatives often are only marginally true alternatives. For example, here we can shop at Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid or the local grocery or one local pharmacy that has a few non-essentials in the style of older drugstores. (gifts and such).

If they're not true alternatives, then I'm not talking about them. Again, irrelevant.

[Lootifer]

Blergh my eyes glazed over pretty quickly; and im an economist (sorta). How did you find that any more accessible than the usual crap?

Anyhoo. My opinion on the matter is more fundamental:

I am a critic of walmart (and similar places: our local ones are called "The Warehouse" and "Mitre10 Mega"), but not just because they pay low wages.

The real issue here is why they are paying low wages. That reason, I think, is what they are selling. Instead of locally sourced, high quality items, they are churning out asian sourced low quality items.

While for the consumer the decision is quite easy: Buy item X from walmart for $5 or buy it from the locally owned and operated shop for $25? Simple really. But economically its essentially adding straight into your balance of trade deficit (the difference between how much your country buys vs what it sells - privately, lets not worry about government spending here) and making that pool of $$$ available for all employees in the economy smaller.

The reason why walmart wages are shit? Because we are addicted to cheap crap.

Really? Who's "we", white man? Sounds like you're aggregating a bit too much here.

Is it really just about the relatively lesser quality of wal-mart's products? Perhaps those shoppers wish to spend the cost-savings on things they deem more important. Why judge them for that?

Then, why judge some poorer people with less disposable income? If you'd like, you can have them purchase more local stuff at higher prices because that'll be helpful to them... (we know how well total autarky works too!).

I assume since you jumped on my one throw-away comment that you largely agree with the rest of my post?

However any real casting of blame evolves into a pro/con nationalist debate. Assuming that you agree that there is some connection between balance of trade and wages, how do you think best to overcome this?

[Woodruff]

And did the article actually have the statement "Most people couldn't have predicted the Internet just a few years ago."? Was this article written in the early 90s?

So nobody else really thought this was a strange statement?

[BigBallinStalin]

Blergh my eyes glazed over pretty quickly; and im an economist (sorta). How did you find that any more accessible than the usual crap?

Anyhoo. My opinion on the matter is more fundamental:

I am a critic of walmart (and similar places: our local ones are called "The Warehouse" and "Mitre10 Mega"), but not just because they pay low wages.

The real issue here is why they are paying low wages. That reason, I think, is what they are selling. Instead of locally sourced, high quality items, they are churning out asian sourced low quality items.

While for the consumer the decision is quite easy: Buy item X from walmart for $5 or buy it from the locally owned and operated shop for $25? Simple really. But economically its essentially adding straight into your balance of trade deficit (the difference between how much your country buys vs what it sells - privately, lets not worry about government spending here) and making that pool of $$$ available for all employees in the economy smaller.

The reason why walmart wages are shit? Because we are addicted to cheap crap.

Really? Who's "we", white man? Sounds like you're aggregating a bit too much here.

Is it really just about the relatively lesser quality of wal-mart's products? Perhaps those shoppers wish to spend the cost-savings on things they deem more important. Why judge them for that?

Then, why judge some poorer people with less disposable income? If you'd like, you can have them purchase more local stuff at higher prices because that'll be helpful to them... (we know how well total autarky works too!).

I assume since you jumped on my one throw-away comment that you largely agree with the rest of my post?

However any real casting of blame evolves into a pro/con nationalist debate. Assuming that you agree that there is some connection between balance of trade and wages, how do you think best to overcome this?

1. Different people enjoy the benefits of different products at different prices. Wal-mart is just one example, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to rip on poorer people, then be my guest.
2. Why should we be concerned about the trade deficit--so long as the world uses USD?
3. What are we "overcoming"?

[BigBallinStalin]

And did the article actually have the statement "Most people couldn't have predicted the Internet just a few years ago."? Was this article written in the early 90s?

So nobody else really thought this was a strange statement?

Woodruff, it's a perfectly normal statement. We're all concerned as to why you keep asking such a strange question...

[AndyDufresne]

And did the article actually have the statement "Most people couldn't have predicted the Internet just a few years ago."? Was this article written in the early 90s?

So nobody else really thought this was a strange statement?

Woodruff, it's a perfectly normal statement. We're all concerned as to why you keep asking such a strange question...

Woodruff theorized the interwebs in 1929 (mostly framed around pneumatic tubes). But then the stock market crashed and everything had to be put on hold for a few decades.


--Andy

[Funkyterrance]

Here's my take on Wal-Mart: They give the people what they want; the lowest prices possible.
I should think that BBS would like this article because Wal-Mart is about as close to the free market as you are going to get in the present day. Wal-Mart is the department store equivalent of the Alien from "Alien" the movie; a perfect killing machine, but it's the embodiment of a free market. I know for a fact that Wal-Mart screws over their suppliers quite regularly but who in their right mind is going to stop supplying to Wal-Mart? Further, in this age of "anything goes" who is going to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart as long as they truly do provide low low prices?

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's my take on Wal-Mart: They give the people what they want; the lowest prices possible.
I should think that BBS would like this article because Wal-Mart is about as close to the free market as you are going to get in the present day. Wal-Mart is the department store equivalent of the Alien from "Alien" the movie; a perfect killing machine, but it's the embodiment of a free market. I know for a fact that Wal-Mart screws over their suppliers quite regularly but who in their right mind is going to stop supplying to Wal-Mart? Further, in this age of "anything goes" who is going to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart as long as they truly do provide low low prices?

Somewhat agree, but community-run bike shops are also "as close as you get to the free market in the present day."

Just sayin'.

[The Voice]

I also doubt this guy would be able to tell me how Wal-Mart's discrimination of female workers adds to how it's one of the best things for our economy.

He referenced it...according to him, it was based on ignorance and didn't really happen.

Whoops, caught me skimming

[Funkyterrance]

Somewhat agree, but community-run bike shops are also "as close as you get to the free market in the present day."

Just sayin'.

Depends on the community and bike shop though right? Too many things can happen to community-run bike shops that can ruin them no matter how in tune with the market they may be.
I'd say one of the huge hurdles for a small business to overcome is the advertising power of a large company like Wal-Mart. A small business may have better prices, better service, more convenient location but if a potential customer is barraged by media telling them "Wal-Mart the Best and Lowest Priced" wherever they go, it's hard to counter on a small business's budget. How do you break the chain so that the market can truly dictate where people spend their money? That's not to mention the possibility that the customer doesn't know the small business even exists in the first place.

[Metsfanmax]

Somewhat agree, but community-run bike shops are also "as close as you get to the free market in the present day."

Just sayin'.

Depends on the community and bike shop though right? Too many things can happen to community-run bike shops that can ruin them no matter how in tune with the market they may be.
I'd say one of the huge hurdles for a small business to overcome is the advertising power of a large company like Wal-Mart. A small business may have better prices, better service, more convenient location but if a potential customer is barraged by media telling them "Wal-Mart the Best and Lowest Priced" wherever they go, it's hard to counter on a small business's budget. How do you break the chain so that the market can truly dictate where people spend their money? That's not to mention the possibility that the customer doesn't know the small business even exists in the first place.

Not only this, but also there are many things we don't buy in a vacuum. I don't intentionally find the lowest price in my area on tomatoes and then go buy them there. I'll do all my grocery shopping in one or two stores to make it easy. Wal-Mart, by having the lowest average prices, drives consumers away from places that may be able to beat them on any one particular item.

[PLAYER57832]

Obviously, people have the option of shopping there...it's not like I'm standing outside the door with a battleaxe (no wife jokes here!). For those who I know who might fit that description, I would simply do my best to educate them about the realities of the business model.

The real problem is that fewer and fewer people HAVE the option, because Walmart's tactics have so driven down the cost of goods that alternatives cannot stay in business.

The option always exists for those who are not at poverty level, even if it means going to a neighboring city to buy groceries (which is what my parents do). I hardly make a significant salary as a teacher, and I do not shop at Wal-Mart nor any other similar store at all. It simply requires making the decision not to do so.

A lot of people today ARE at poverty level.

Yes, they are...and? Your contention that alternatives cannot stay in business is not particularly accurate in that Wal-Mart does not exist in every city and town. I understand what you're trying to say, but you're saying it very poorly.

Walmart exists in almost every city or town that has anything other than the tiniest market. Also, many areas that used to have viable small markets now have none because anyone who can drive or get a ride will go to the nearest decent size town to shop at Walmart/Kmart, etc. Small shops hang on for a while, keep boosting their prices to keep enough profit to stay open and then wind up closing. This literally kills smaller towns, yet there are many reasons why keeping people in these smaller towns is better for society. I am not saying it is a "slam dunk" that small automatically equals better, Walmart distorts the equation, and does it at what amounts to taxpayer expense. THAT is the part that makes it bad.. they are not really and truly running on a free market, though they claim they are. If it were not for workers being supported by tax payers and often by local municipalities as well, they could not survive. We wind up supporting them whether we wish to or not.

Beyond that, it depends on access. I shop at my local grocery store, and buy clothes either used or at sales in various stores. Our income is below the poverty level, but I am very good at "stretching".

So? I'm failing to see the relevance. I'm talking about people who really have little option financially. You obviously have options.

I do, but only marginally. One reason I have choices is the Amish, ironically. They can sell some things at lower costs than more traditional people. But, that, too, is a kind of "cheat". They don't, for example, pay the same taxes that the rest of us do. They don't because they don't use the services, so I don't see it as the same kind of abuse as Walmart/Kmart, etc. But, most farmers don't really have the option to live as they do -- even if they were willing to do it, it requires a network/community like the Amish have or its not viable. And, any more the Amish actually depend a fair amount on non-Amish. (to drive them places, etc.). Even so, my choices are becoming more and more limited. I am fortunate to live in a community that has stuck together, but there are reasons that don't apply everywhere.

I work with plenty of people who don't have choices.

The other issue is that even those alternatives often are only marginally true alternatives. For example, here we can shop at Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid or the local grocery or one local pharmacy that has a few non-essentials in the style of older drugstores. (gifts and such).

If they're not true alternatives, then I'm not talking about them. Again, irrelevant.

Not really, because if you broaden it, then there are almost no places with true alternatives. I don't have to shop at Walmart, but I DO have to shop at either Walmart, Kmart, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid, or CVS for most things. I can get a few items at a private drug store, but even the crayons that my son has to bring to 1rst grade are not available either there or at the local privately owned grocery store. Going through Amazon or such means paying more for shipping than the crayons themselves.

Mostly, MY "alternative" is to just do without. I do a LOT of that, but its not the best option for an economy.

[PLAYER57832]

Here's my take on Wal-Mart: They give the people what they want; the lowest prices possible.
I should think that BBS would like this article because Wal-Mart is about as close to the free market as you are going to get in the present day. Wal-Mart is the department store equivalent of the Alien from "Alien" the movie; a perfect killing machine, but it's the embodiment of a free market. I know for a fact that Wal-Mart screws over their suppliers quite regularly but who in their right mind is going to stop supplying to Wal-Mart? Further, in this age of "anything goes" who is going to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart as long as they truly do provide low low prices?

No its the bastardization of the free market.

Walmart mostly could not exist without outside price supports... supports to its employees, tax breaks to its localities, etc, etc, etc. Pretending this is a free market is like saying that socialism is a free market. The fact that people are making money doesn't mean its a free market, it just means they are able to abuse the system at OUR expense.

[Night Strike]

Here's my take on Wal-Mart: They give the people what they want; the lowest prices possible.
I should think that BBS would like this article because Wal-Mart is about as close to the free market as you are going to get in the present day. Wal-Mart is the department store equivalent of the Alien from "Alien" the movie; a perfect killing machine, but it's the embodiment of a free market. I know for a fact that Wal-Mart screws over their suppliers quite regularly but who in their right mind is going to stop supplying to Wal-Mart? Further, in this age of "anything goes" who is going to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart as long as they truly do provide low low prices?

No its the bastardization of the free market.

Walmart mostly could not exist without outside price supports... supports to its employees, tax breaks to its localities, etc, etc, etc. Pretending this is a free market is like saying that socialism is a free market. The fact that people are making money doesn't mean its a free market, it just means they are able to abuse the system at OUR expense.

Sounds like a perfect reason for cutting the involvement of government in the marketplace so that the free market systems can work out the issues.