Yesterday's Snohomish County insert in the Seattle Times ran an op-ed decrying attempts to add another Wal-Mart in the Mill Creek area. The battle between those in favor and those opposed of Wal-Mart has been fought in many other forums and I don't wish to recount such battles in full, but two points in the op-ed jumped out at me as exceptionally flawed:
1) The authors note, "We called attention to the potential traffic congestion (adding as many as 8,500 trips per day)..." Um, would such vehicle traffic by chance be the result of people who want and choose to shop at Wal-Mart? That doesn't exactly bolster the case that Wal-Mart is unwanted.
2) The authors complain, "Did you know that a substantial number of Wal-Mart "associates" earn far below the federal poverty line and that the company provides health-care coverage to less than half its employees?"
Yes, I did know that. I also know that if you did a similar such analysis of entry-level or near-entry level workers in just about any portion of the retail sector you'd find the same economic situation. In fact, you'd likely find Wal-Mart actually provides better benefits than many retailers with whom the company competes for entry-level workers. Go get a job at the mall and see how many establishments offer healthcare benefits and the like to their hourly employees, especially those working less than 40 hours a week.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 29, 2007 07:45 AM | Email ThisMy fourth grade daughter came home one day and said Johnny in her class told her that he wasn't allowed in WalMart because it was "evil".
That led to a little discussion on the supposed "evil" of WalMart. We shop there. But, I can't believe what adults tell their kids; it is absolutely sickening.
I remember politicking and talking to the retail union and noticed the antiWalMart brochure. They told me that WalMart isn't union and won't allow a vote by their people whether they want a union or not. Sounded like a reasonable request.
Except, now, after nearly a decade of reviewing that claim by the union (after all, they like the Democrat controlled Costco which is non-union) and seeing the mass disinformation being put out there, I am a WalMart supporter.
Posted by: swatter on November 29, 2007 07:49 AM1. Perhaps adding a second Wal-Mart nearby will relieve the congestion around the first one? The number of Wal-Mart shoppers won't double, meaning some from the first store will go to the second store, easing congestion.
2. I don't think Mill Creek is a small town...;) At least not out at the 164th/I-5 interchange!
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 29, 2007 08:11 AMWal-Mart has a grip on what the American consumer wants and they provide it---cheap.
Signed, Former Retailer who wouldn't sell Chinese merchandise.
Posted by: Ken Howard on November 29, 2007 08:24 AMThe problem is our country is dependent on Arab oil and governments like China holding our debt.
We can't demand reforms because our economy can't take the consequences of putting pressure on China to reform its environmental and product standards and we can't walk away from problems in the Middle East. The fact that our national government has not been prudent in spending causes most Americans to look for what they think is cheap. I guess there is something like Karma as the pollution in Beijing is so bad that Olympic participants and spectors will probably be wearing masks at the next Olympics. I wonder how cheap, cheap really is?
The oil problem will never go away until we drill. But that will never happen until the day we kick the eco-freaks out of government!
But when??????????????
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 29, 2007 08:55 AMWait till the cars show up! 0-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 29, 2007 09:07 AMI am not anti-Walmart, the only reason I don't shop there more is I live in Seattle and the closest store is near Renton. I do shop at Target except around Christmas if they don't let the bellringers around their store or don't call the season Christmas. The stuff that I buy at Target seems to be of good quality. I wonder if the buyers at Target, Freddie, and Costco have developed their own internal monitoring for their supply chain and whether Wal-mart relies on Chinese government monitoring to cut their costs? From my couple of visits at Walmart, the stuff seems slightly cheaper than the other places.
Posted by: WVH on November 29, 2007 09:22 AMI'm a rational consumer (I think). Given the choice of two products of equal quality, I'm going to choose the less expensive one. That's why I buy things like detergent, diapers, and batteries at Walmart. There's alot of things I won't buy there however.
Do we really need a Walmart within 3 miles of everyone? I don't think so. I support local businesses and local products whenever possible, because I know that money will be spent almost exclusively in our community. The produce I buy from my local farmer's market is less expensive AND higher quality than what's at Safeway - I just wish it was open year round. The beer I brew is with ingredients from a family owned business. The restaurants we eat at are almost exclusively local, not chains.
There's more to the Walmart thing than just the union argument against it, and the healthcare red herrings. I'm not totally anti-Walmart or pro-Walmart, but I'm defintely pro-locally owned small business. I want those people in business because they are what makes a community. Some will call it protectionism or anti-capitalism when Walmarts are blocked, and it is, but I believe it's worth it in some instances.
Posted by: Palouse on November 29, 2007 09:52 AM1) The site is on a wetland drainage that has a history of flooding the roads at that intersection. I have seen that very intersection closed down twice by flood waters after heavy storms. If you reviewed the Walmart site plan, as I have, you would see that they have not addressed the problem of converting natural ground to 13 acres of asphalt at the site of the flooding.
2) The supporting roads surrounding the site are built on a peat bog, and have been rebuilt twice in the last 5 years due to settling from LIGHT automotive traffic. Now add 3 million cars and tens of thousands of semi truck trips annually...
3) The traffic in that immediate area ALREADY receives the DOT's lowest ratings for throughput. The Walmart will add another chokepoint intersection and 3 million more cars per year. The infrastructure simply is unable to handle the additional load.
4) Concern for pedestrian safety, particularly school children (there are two schools directly across the street) lured across a busy arterial to the Walmart. Recently a young girl was killed in Puyallup while crossing an arterial near her school.
5) Crime: The Lynnwood Walmart averages several hundred police responses per year, including vagrancy and drug activity.
The bottom line is this is a residential neighborhood, and there is almost universal opposition to this specific WalMart, or ANY big box retailer AT THIS SITE, because of the impact it would have on the neighborhood. This is not a "Tree Hugger" vs. "The Evil Empire" issue for most people in this neighborhood. You would understand that if you had attended the public hearings. People in general in this neighborhood do not oppose all development. However, most people here, regardless of political point of view, vehemently oppose THIS big box type of development.
It's amusing to see you attempting to defend your religion by demanding that giant commercial chains selling junk made in anti-religious countries run advertisements promoting consumption on a pagan holiday. But hey, that's your perogative. Merry Christmas!
Posted by: Bruce on November 29, 2007 10:24 AMThis is the United States. We have capitalism. Wal-Mart is a great example. They sell things people want, and people want to shop there, and other people want to work there. It's a free country. Using force to deny Wal-Mart's existence is no different that using force to deny some leftist's book shop in Fremont from its existence. Either way it is wrong. If you don't like Wal-Mart, vote with your feet and don't shop there.
As for the argument that it hurts small town shops, that's wrong too. Wal-Mart only hurts small shops that refuse to provide something that Wal-Mart does not provide. There are plenty of specialty lumber stores and hardware stores that compete quite successfully with Home Depot and Lowes. The same is true with small retailers. Provide something of value, and you will have customers. It might be better service, or a set of products that better matches local customer tastes, or a better location, or simply an alternative to Wal-Mart.
But if you whine about it and wait for the government to come and legislate Wal-Mart out of existence, then you can't cry when the government won't let you build on your own property because of some other set of laws. Freedom is freedom. And Wal-Mart has just as much freedom as you do.
Don't hate Wal-Mart's success, because that's not what made the US great, or what will keep the US great.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 29, 2007 10:44 AMBefore moving up here, I lived in the Austin, TX area with Super Wal-Marts aplenty. They were just another competitor in the grocery business. Their prime competitors were H.E.B. and Randall's (owned by Safeway). Albertson's was also present, but as of lately, is closing down it's locations in the area. Wal-Mart has (theorhetically) lower prices and other grocers are forced to compete or close up shop. Simple. H.E.B. and Randall's have found a way. Albertson's hasn't.
With regard to small town grocers, it would be advantageous for them to provide something that you just don't get at Super Wally World. My parent's hometown is a prime example. Located some 15 miles from the nearest Wal-Mart (where many of the town's residents do shop), the local grocer Fischer's has been in business and shows no signs of closing shop. They offer a meat market with unique items that tends to draw folks from neighboring towns. They also offer meat processing services around deer season.
One of the keys that keep both Wal-Mart and Fischer's going is that people come to take advantage of the loss-leader deals (Wal-Mart) or unique products (Fischer's), yet out of our laziness or desire for convenience, we often buy our whole grocery list there for the one-stop-shopping experience.
Posted by: Big Tex on November 29, 2007 10:50 AMBefore moving up here, I lived in the Austin, TX area with Super Wal-Marts aplenty. They were just another competitor in the grocery business. Their prime competitors were H.E.B. and Randall's (owned by Safeway). Albertson's was also present, but as of lately, is closing down it's locations in the area. Wal-Mart has (theorhetically) lower prices and other grocers are forced to compete or close up shop. Simple. H.E.B. and Randall's have found a way. Albertson's hasn't.
With regard to small town grocers, it would be advantageous for them to provide something that you just don't get at Super Wally World. My parent's hometown is a prime example. Located some 15 miles from the nearest Wal-Mart (where many of the town's residents do shop), the local grocer Fischer's has been in business and shows no signs of closing shop. They offer a meat market with unique items that tends to draw folks from neighboring towns. They also offer meat processing services around deer season.
One of the keys that keep both Wal-Mart and Fischer's going is that people come to take advantage of the loss-leader deals (Wal-Mart) or unique products (Fischer's), yet out of our laziness or desire for convenience, we often buy our whole grocery list there for the one-stop-shopping experience.
Posted by: Big Tex on November 29, 2007 10:52 AMAlthough I have not been impressed with WalMart the few times I have been there, it obviously meets the needs of many who do shop there on a regular basis. And they have lots of free parking, just like the major malls. Building a new store on poorly drained land is silly, but we already have many businesses and homes located in flood prone areas, so I don't think this argument alone will keep WalMart from pursuing their plans.
Posted by: Burdabee on November 29, 2007 11:13 AMChristmas is a religious holiday honoring the birth of Christ. Retailers get a substantial amount of profit from us evil Christians, if fact if Christmas sales are good, they end the year in the black. Thought that you were for liberty and freedom of choice. Don't feel like honoring my religion, I don't feel like giving you my cash. It is my liberty and freedom of choice to do so, isn't that lameotarian theory?
Posted by: WVH on November 29, 2007 11:31 AMAs I say to my neighbors: "If you want that small store up the street to succeed and be there, than you must spend some money there." and that is what I do. You have to responsibly sprinkle your money around.
I'm not saying that you can't take advantage of Walk-Mart but spread the dough around to include your local retailers too.
I like big box stores like Wal-Mart, Fred Meyer, Lowe's and Costco but the little guys need to be supported too.
Also on the subject of Wal-Mart having “cheap” merchandise. Yes, in some cases they do have cheaply made stuff but in my experience the products are mostly good merchandise cheaply priced. The last thing I bought there was a Webber grill (in the middle of winter, do that at Fred’s!) and it wasn’t cheaply made but it was priced right.
Means nothing unless the county planners acknowledge those numbers. If this was King County, KCDOT planners could probably cook the books to show that a Wal-Mart would reduce traffic, inventing another reason to support it.
"Um, would such vehicle traffic by chance be the result of people who want and choose to shop at Wal-Mart?"
Sure, but the impacted drivers that deserve the attention would not be the occasional Wal-Mart shopper, but the homeowners that live in proximity to the store. I doubt, Eric, that you'd support the congestion of a road that you had to use every day. I say the road issue goes away if Wal-Mart ponies up the money to increase capacity of all roads in the vicinity to handle its impacts. (...The sound of Snohomish County planners cooking the books are now heard.)
Posted by: MJC on November 29, 2007 11:59 AMHowever, in defense of the author at #1, just because a lot of people want it doesn't mean that it's "wanted" in the sense that sure, those 8,500 might want it, but the other 100,000 in the area might not want it and find it inconvenient.
That said, I seriously doubt that it's "unwanted" by people other then liberal haters and arrogant elitists.
I personally am not a fan of Wal-Mart because I hate the atmosphere and rarely want anything they have. So I don't shop there. And that's what these liberal elites should do, if they don't like Wal-Mart, don't go there. It's funny how they can say that about abortion, in which case there is arguably a 3rd party involved, and not when it's a clear cut case of one person choosing to interact with another, requiring nothing of anybody else.
Posted by: cliff on November 29, 2007 12:12 PMMill Creek can decide they don't won't Wal-Mart, but that's not a good thing, because only government can make that call. If they use the force of government to stop a Wal-Mart, that otherwise has the customer base to exist, then what will they regulate next? Progressive governments find that they can make all kinds of go/no-go decisions, and the loss of freedom is a result.
Some commenters cite road or drainage problems as good reasons not to build a Wal-Mart. This is preposterous, as if it's not possible to solve these simple construction problems. Why not simply include that in Wal-Mart's building permit. It's not too much to ask that Wal-Mart accommodate the traffic and customers, drainage, etc. If Wal-Mart then determines that it is still a good business case to build, then they will, if not, they won't. That's how decisions should be made under capitalism, through persuasion, and not force.
As I indicated above, Wal-Mart is a big business wanting to get bigger, just like a small business might want to get bigger. Why is it that small business is looked at as "hard working entrepreneurs" yet Wal-Mart is looked at as a big business that has lost those same rights? Just because a business reaches a certain size, it should not suddenly be required to be regulated by government. In capitalism, we all play by the same rules. Some are bigger winners than others. Life is tough. The alternative is socialism where we all lose at a lower level. Most will choose capitalism, because they realize that it's better to leave such decisions to the market. If there is demand, then Wal-Mart should build, and if they buy private property and adhere to building codes, etc. there should be nothing to stop them from doing so.
Next, there is the blame of materialism. I bet M&M works for a company that sells something or provides some service. I bet his/her employment depends on continued purchase of those goods or services. Indicting American consumerism is suicidal, because we all depend on it for our own lives. And it is particularly gross and hypocritical when one says that Costco is OK, but Wal-Mart is not. I doubt M&M would like a similar decree on however his/her living is generated. Commerce is the greatest value we have. Trading goods is a means of dealing with our fellow man that is a win-win. The alternative is to take by force. We should not condemn Wal-Mart's right to trade goods of any type or origin. When people buy things freely, that is their right. Forcing people to buy American or vilifying people for not buying American is un-American.
Next there's the fallacy of Costco wages vs. Wal-Mart wages. They are completely different for a reason. Wal-Mart is able to offer many more positions for people with lower level skills. Because, they don't turn those positions in to costly and unfordable expenses for their business model. And low and behold, there are many people that want those jobs, because they need a part time job, or have no other skills, etc. Costco by contrast, takes the more union like approach of paying higher benefits and salaries. Those costs are borne out on either higher prices for their customers, or less total number of jobs available. Costco might choose to employ one full time employee at $50K per year, whereas Wal-Mart might choose to employ two part time Employees to do an equivalent amount of work at a lower part time wage of say $10K per year, but without the need for benefits. Those employees might be students who already have benefits from their parents, etc. So they don't need the full time work, and in return they offer their services to Wal-Mart for a business model that allows them a lower salary expense. When Wal-Mart employees people full time, they have access to similar full time benefits as any other large corporation.
Neither business is wrong. Those decision are freedom. Costco can run its business in its manner of choosing and so can Wal-Mart. If you are for punishment or regulation of Wal-Mart, then you should also be for punishment and regulation of your own place of work or business.
Wal-Mart is a great example of American success. Don't fall into the trance or socialist and Marxist philosophy that teaches you to frame Wal-Mart in a classist manner, and to hate it because it does not conform to left leaning approval, or have executive officers who are Democrats, etc.
The level of anti-American hatred in such fallacies is truly disgusting. Realize that freedom means leaving people and companies alone to make decisions in their own best interest, and not being jealous of their success, or begruding them their methods.
The kind of people who hate Wal-Mart are the same kinds of people who hate it when their neighbor buys a new car. It's really a projection of their own self-hatred and failure, and not any reflection on the success of their neighbor or of the success or business decisions of Wal-Mart.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 29, 2007 12:16 PMConsumers should opt to spend locally, but when too many of them don't, then we are left with a soulless corporate wasteland of retail and strip malls. I don't support that, and if that means having to drive a few extra miles for everyone to find a Walmart, I'm fine with that. Those who absolutely want to go there will drive the extra distance. And we still give preference to local small businesses, who keep their profits in the community.
Posted by: Palouse on November 29, 2007 12:31 PMYou are not informed with respect to what the Wal-Mart development will need to do to go forward.
1) Stormwater detention- 13 acres of pavement will require a stormwater vault to detain/retain ANY water that lands on either the roof or pavement. The current DOE stormwater regulations require that the water exiting the site be clean and exit the site at a rate comparable to 13 acres of virgin old growth forest. They probably applied for development prior to this draconian regulation taking affect, but they still will have to abide by the 1992 stormwater manual and will have to build a vault with a construction cost in excess of $500,000. Further, the water that is expelled from the site will be cleaner (stormwater filters) and will occur at a rate less than that which is currently leaving the site. In theory, if the stormwater system is working properly, the flooding will be LESS than with the current conditions.
2. The supporting roads are, under the Growth Management Act, the responsibility of Snohomish County. If they were built on peat, that is the problem of the County to fix that. However, the GMA also mandates road mitigation which can and should be used to improve all the intersections and road conditions surrounding the project. This mitigation is based on trips generated and it probably tops a million dollars. This money will be wasted by Snohomish County and Washingtion State on bus stops or some other joke of a project.
3) see #2
4) Small children crossing 132nd is not good, but not the problem of Wal-Mart. We are truly living in a nanny state, come on. McCollum park and plenty of other businesses are along 132nd which may be attractive to children who may need to cross the street, How is that the problem of private business? Last time I checked there were cops all over that road during school hours writing tickets.
5) Crime? Sounds like that is the problem of the Sheriff- Paid for by taxes, which Wal-Mart will provide a lot, for your neighborhood as well.
One question for the anti-Wal-Marters: Why was there no outcry for the Lowes just down the street. Same EXACT business model (cheap crap at cheap prices)Same road, same basic location....This IS a tree hugger/hate Wal-Mart problem... Bottom line.
Posted by: Matt on November 29, 2007 01:32 PMCan't we same the same for the darling of the left, Starbucks?
Their goal is one on every corner... and with 4 every 2 blocks they are close to succeeding...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 29, 2007 03:11 PMLook at 90% of retail stores of all types as well as the Catalogues which are in the mail every day at this season, and the 90% has been on a boat from China. ( It might even be a higher percentage) Who gets to cast the first stone?
Posted by: Don Joss on November 29, 2007 05:12 PMPalouse,
I wonder if there would be more financial benefit to your community in the form of jobs and increased tax revenues (not to mention consumer savings) from the addition of a Wal-Mart store compared to the missing profits after the closing of a handful of boutique shops? Why is it that local governments compete to get these big box stores built in their communities? Hint: it's not because money would be *leaving* their jurisdiction. ;)
Posted by: Smoley on November 29, 2007 05:30 PM
You make the call!
Stores that sell cheap goods, for less money are conservative. Those that sell more expensive stuff, with more informed service, are liberal.
Who'd have thought?
I think Walmart is great - when out of town guests come to town what a better place to take them, to show off your community?
After all, where you shop now speaks to your politics, and not just your values.
Posted by: BA on November 29, 2007 06:26 PMCall made.
Posted by: CandrewB on November 29, 2007 06:33 PMOne of them, and I do think it's Zogby, uses Walmart, Nascar and passport questions to categorize it's participants:
How often do you shop at Walmart: once a week, once a month, a few times a year, never?
Do you consider yourself a Nascar fan?
Do you have a valid passport?
Do you consider yourself part of the investor class?
Do you consider yourself a citizen of your town, America, the world... and one other...
It's actually quite amusing to watch liberals froth over Walmart when they equally whine about unemployment...
FACT: Wal-Mart, the most prodigious job-creator in the history of the private sector in this galaxy, has almost as many employees (1.3 million) as the U.S. military has uniformed personnel. A McKinsey company study concluded that Wal-Mart accounted for 13 percent of the nation's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s, which probably made Wal-Mart about as important as the Federal Reserve in holding down inflation. By lowering consumer prices, Wal-Mart costs about 50 retail jobs among competitors for every 100 jobs Wal-Mart creates. Wal-Mart and its effects save shoppers more than $200 billion a year, dwarfing such government programs as food stamps ($28.6 billion) and the earned-income tax credit ($34.6 billion).
It's actually quite amusing to watch liberals froth over Walmart when they equally whine about hungry Americans...
FACT: People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart -- it has one-fifth of the nation's grocery business -- save at least 17 percent.
The reason liberals froth over Walmart is because Walmart, for the most part, refuses to bend over and bow down to them.
I never browse at Walmart... I simply do not like stores with high, tight, crowded aisles. It's the same reason I prefer Lowes to Home Depot.
I do run into Walmart occasionally when my kid has a deodorant emergency... simply put they are as convenient as RiteAid, Walgreen (ick), Safeway, Fred Meyer and QFC and far less expensive on deoderant.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 29, 2007 07:35 PMNor is competition such a problem; I know in the past I've seen studies that have shown that WalMart is not the evil-doer that some make it out to be. The reason Mom & Pop stores don't thrive is that they don't compete adequately on those things they can do well, such as personal service, selection, quality, etc. & they don't stock the items that shoppers prefer.
Posted by: Clean House on November 29, 2007 07:51 PMWalmart reported $344b in world wide sales (about 80% of that is US sales). That means something a bit less that $280b in US sales.
Since Ragnars says Walmart saves us about $200b a year - without Walmart we'd be paying nearly twice as much for the goods they sell if we bought them elsewhere.
That is impressive. Unbelievable in fact.
Posted by: BA on November 29, 2007 08:02 PMI took the info from an article written by George Will back in Sept 2006, ...
another written by Bill Murchison in April 2005,...
...still more from The Manhattan Institute written in 2004...
and a little thing researched by John Semmens in October 2005...
Walmart probably has save folks a whole lot more since those were researched and written.
Facts are sure inconvenient, aren't they?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 29, 2007 08:28 PMOh wait, NONE.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 29, 2007 08:32 PMThe geniuses in Port Townsend do not seem to understand that a good portion of the sales tax paid by Jefferson County residents is paid to Clallam, Kitsap and Mason counties. I wonder if the same geniuses in Port Townsend have figured out how much excess carbon dioxide Jefferson County residents emit by having to leave the County to shop at the stores of their choice.
Posted by: JC Bob on November 29, 2007 08:36 PMInteresting articles - not quite scholarly nor do they reference their sources.
Can you find the original research, or primary sources and cite it instead for your "facts"?
We Bruce's are used to being the only Bruce around, since are name is not very common.
I kinda wish he would add a last initial or make some other distinction in his signature...
But we did both go to Cornell!
"Far above cayuga's watters,
there's an awful smell.
Some say it's Cayuga's waters,
some say it's Cornell!"
Yay, WalMart!!!
Yay, Capitalism!!!
He is a liberal.
I am a Libertarian, and therefore a laissez-faire, free market capitalist, and a Ron Paul fan.
Yay, Wal-Mart!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 30, 2007 04:05 AMAs for wages, etc., it has been a while since I last came to grips with the wages of Costco versus WalMart. Costco sells high ticket items and sells several thousand fewer items than WalMart. Therefore, they don't need to hire as many people.
With the advent of inventory and computer, WalMart needs many more employees (double anyone?) and they don't need to be highly skilled.
Also, by hiring the lesser fortunate employees, aren't they, in essence, getting thousands of more people off the unemployment lines, creating a demand for jobs and just overall creating a better business environment than the elitist Costco?
I have thought about it and agree. Last thing, when you look at the wages of the Costco versus KMarts and Targets, it isn't as bad as the union bosses want you to believe.
Posted by: swatter on November 30, 2007 07:05 AMAbsolutely. I have no problem if communities wanted to limit the number of Starbucks too. I think there's a town in Oregon that has done that, with success.
The bottom line for me is that locally owned businesses are what adds character to any place you live. I don't want to live in a community that's completely full of corporate chain restaurants, Starbucks and Walmarts. Take a gander down to many places in Florida and Texas, and that's what you'll find. It's strip mall hell. No thanks.
Posted by: Palouse on November 30, 2007 08:31 AMI have worked a LOT with the Walmart organization and do a lot of business with them each year. I really like the people I work with there. They really seem to attract friendly people. What I find interesting when I talk to them is that a great number of them have taken the time to tell me that Walmart gave them a job when no one else would and/or presented them with opportunities to grown and advance despite barriers that would have prevented their growth in other businesses such as lack of formal education or work experience.
When they tell their stories, they aren't whining about the lack of opportunity or "hard knocks" in their lives - they speak with pride about how they were given an opportunity and earned their promotions and positions in the company.
I've spoken to some fairly "senior" management at the company that started out as retailer clerks, "greeters", stock people and truck drivers. Now they run warehouses, retail stores and distribution centers.
I have no doubt when I hear the stories that a significant number of these people might still be on welfare or other government assistance programs if they hadn't gotten a shot. (Many of them will say the same thing.)
I guess the Union organizers would like to force Walmart to raise salaries to a point where the company couldn't gamble on the less fortunate people out there. It would close down the opportunities for these less fortunate types.
The unions would love to push Walmart to raise consumer prices so that other retailers that haven't made the investment in distribution and inventory management wouldn't be at such a disadvantage. Never midn that the people on the low end of the economic ladder couldn't afford food and clothing for their families.
I'm sure they would love to raise manpower expenses to the point where it would make it impossible for Walmart to do things like hire senior citizens to greet shoppers with a smile when they walk in the door.
I guess liberals try so hard to demonize Walmart because they hate competition. The company is stealing all of their constituents by taking them off welfare and government assistance programs and making them productive happy, motivated workers.
They are each well respected and trusted writers, pundits and commentators with long legacies as such. I trust their information is based on FACTS found by in-depth and impeccable research. Their continued credibilty and their livelihood's absolutely depend on it.
You don't choose to believe it or you are purposely being obtuse. Either way, I don't support welfare in any form, but especially for lazy bloggers. So, go do your own research; then either refute them or admit you are wrong.
I won't hold my breath waiting.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 30, 2007 01:46 PMLook around at this website here, lots of strong opinions backed by feelings.
When I read a "fact", represented by someone in a column, then repeated verbatim by someone else, I'm curious to know if the "fact" has survived the translations, and if it is still being used in context.
I have no quarrel nor care with Walmart.
Retail history over the last 100 years in this country has been a history of consolidation and increased efficiency. The very first "grocery stores" that brought together baked goods and butchers were just as feared by their competitors as Walmart is now to smaller, less efficient, stores.
Walmart has, because of their scale, brought tremendous efficiencies to the market and reduced waste. (When was the last time your deodorant came in a box - who do think figured out that the box cost money to produce, transport and then throw away - Walmart).
Don't do my my research - I'm not sure it would be of the quality I'd find acceptable anyway - I can do my own.
Lazy huh. You're the one relying on others - I'm not so trusting.
Posted by: BA on November 30, 2007 05:19 PMThey have something invested in using facts, in the truth: their future. People don't work against their own self-interest, nor do they purposely sabotage themselves with lies.
What do you have invested?
Remember, that I did point out the DATES the articles were written... although I am confident Walmart's success and benefits to the community has grown not lessened.
Prove me (and them) wrong.
And, make sure you use FACTS not just anti-Walmart screed.
Good luck with that.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 30, 2007 05:39 PMIn November of 2005 the firm "Global Insight" looked at the efficiences in the market place brought about by Walmart. They concluded that over the period of 1985 to 2004 the expansion of Walmart could be associated with a decline of over 9% in food prices, over 4% in commodities and over 3% in overall consumer prices.
(For a detailed look at food prices, and the dramatic savings Walmart provides to very low income families see Hausman and Leibtag's October 2005 Paper "Consumer Benefits from Increased Competition in Shopping Outlets: Measuring the Effect of Walmart - MIT and Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, October 2005)
Interesting to me, this study found the overall effect on consumers by 2004 was a savings of about $263b dollars. Similar enough to your statement of $200b dollars in savings.
Except they found that to be the cumulative savings from 1985 to 2004, not the annual savings as you said.
Is that proof you got your "fact" wrong?
No, it is only one study that arrives at a completely different set of facts. Global Insight's study was commissioned by Walmart so a bit of skeptism is in order too. I'd want to read a few more studies first to be comfortable, but then I was comfortable thinking your information was suspect when your sources turned out to be secondary.
I see that Wikipedia miss-quotes Global Insight's study results too and identifies the the savings as annual, not cumulative. Guess that's why my teachers never allowed encylopedias to be sources of information for papers...
For a look at Walmart and how it should be affecting the consumer price index calculations see Hausmann's paper "CPI Bias from Supercenters: Does the BLS Know that Wal-Mart Exists?" June 2005.
You might read "The Walmart Effect" by Charles Fishman too. You can judge for yourself his bias, and delve further into his footnotes.
This is interesting stuff - more interesting that quoting columnists that appear to have garbled their "facts".
Posted by: BA on December 1, 2007 07:44 AM