Frontline: Is Walmart good for America?

Did anyone catch this show?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/


Thoughts?


Mara

No, I didn't see the show; but I read thru some of that site. It's not news to me personally, I'm involved in the consumer packaging industry, and Walmart and Sam's are almost a daily topic of conversation on one project or another.

I did not see that special, nor did I read anything on that site, but I will tell you what I think anyways, since that is what I do. I always take the unpopular side on this forum, but I support Wal-Mart. I may not like their employment policies, but Wal-Mart runs a business, just like your Grandfather's pharmacy. Wal-Mart ONLY DOES WHAT PEOPLE WANT! By that, I mean that Wal-Mart provides goods at the lowest prices possible, thereby ensuring that you get more for your money. I could spend 14 paragraphs going into how they offer low prices, but I don't care, nor does anybody else. The bottom line is that they are selling goods for a lower price than anyone else, so anyone who calls Wal-Mart evil just needs to shop elsewhere and pay more.

The question is whether or not Wal-Mart is good for the individual, not America. The consumer is always right.

so anyone who calls Wal-Mart evil just needs to shop elsewhere and pay more

But you don't understand, i have no choice! I have to buy the lowest prices because corporate America is holding a gun to my head.

:rolleyes:

Nos.

Apparently, Matt, you don't have them trying to bully their way into building Megastores on pristine farmland in areas where they will SEVERELY impact on the quality of life.

They're trying to build right across the road from me, and right across from protected wetlands preserves. The road fronting the property is already one of the most heavily travelled non-state controlled roads in the county—used as a sort of "Shortcut" around the city during morning annd evening rush hour. If they build, that traffic will continue all hours of the day and night.

They don't give a good $h!t about all the people who protest on a weekly basis and who show up at council meetings to voice their objections. All they care about is:

"Are there any laws that say we CAN'T build wherever the hell we want? No such zoning laws? OK, good. We're going to buy this land and build there. We don't care how much we kill the wetlands and whether the monumental traffic increase will result in more dead deer, ducks, geese, and other animals, accidents, and littering. And we don't care that the freakin' sodium lights will be burning 24 hours a day, ruining a nice quiet area at night. We just wannna build, build, build, because we're powerful, and just because we can and because we want to. Screw you, populace."

These bastards could buy a property ¾ of a mile up the road that's already zoned for such contruction. Why don't they? Nobody has seemed to offer an answer to that question.

[quote=Utopian23]These bastards could buy a property ¾ of a mile up the road that's already zoned for such contruction. Why don't they? Nobody has seemed to offer an answer to that question.[/quote]I'm gonna bet it's cheaper where they want to build. They wouldn't build somewhere more expensive just for the hell of it. See below for the whole answer.

To get things started:

[quote=Nostalgia]But you don't understand, i have no choice! I have to buy the lowest prices because corporate America is holding a gun to my head.[/quote]I certainly hope that that is sarcasm because that is perhaps one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on the internet.

By using the term "holding a gun to your head", to which part of "corporate america's" business structure are you referring?

To just adhere to the issue at hand, let's examine Wal-Mart's apparent business plan.

• Provide an extraordinarily inexpensive product (read: low-quality product) at a slightly more meager markup rate than boutique-chains or department stores offer said product.
• Sell said product at a lower markup in a greater volume (made possible by low sale price of article)

Theoretically, this business plan has several inherent effects.

1. It elimentates competition (establishes a monopoly)
   • By driving existing businesses out of a given market.
   • By boxing-out potential new contenders from a given location
2. It establishes customer loyalty. (read: customer dependence on lower prices)
   • The quality of an item (specifically garments) will be a secondary consideration to the price of said item.
   • Thus, customer loses interest in durability of product, considering that a new one can be had when it is needed, given that the price is still extremely low compared to a store selling a similar product exclusively.

The above list is highly abbreviated, however I assume it's made up of things that you either know, or can surmise on your own.

The question at hand though must be answered. Are they "Killing America". Or, more broadly put, are they doing anything wrong in operating their business.

I have to answer, no.

It seems that it is widely the goal of individuals to get the most out of a given situation. It could be said moreso that each individual is inherently selfish. To varying degrees, but there is no one individual who is completely selfless. They may behave selflessly, or engage in acts that are selfless, but inherently, I do not believe that there is a single being who is without some kind of ulterior motive, or self-serving goal. Again, there are varying shades of this, (ie. Hitler<------------->Mother Theresa) but it all comes down to who can control these inherent desires, who cannot control them, and who embraces them, to make their own personal gain the foremost of their lifelong goals.

Collectively, these principles are magnified. Such is the case where a corporation is involved. Businesses exist exclusively to make money. The provide the least possible quality that they can, while still maintaining enough customer satisfaction that they can ensure a return purchase, all the while doing whatever they can to make that likelihood of a return purchase more like a guarantee. (Read: Monopoplize a given market).

To say that this problem is new is foolish. This has been the state of affairs at very least since humans have been trading goods.

Whether you're darwinian, agnostic or religious, this model applies. A being will do for itself before all others, when it is free of consequences. Considering the business as an 'organism' of sorts, being comprised of many individuals, all of whom have to adhere to the control of a governing "brain" (a board of directors). The business exists to make money. That is it's food. That is how it continues to live. A business (Or it's "brain") will never forgo an opportunity to "eat". When you think about it, why would they either?

Moreso, this is not the case just with Wal-Mart. Every company falls into this description in some manner or another.

Just my 2 cents.

I didn't read any further, because that'w what I do but....

mattboy - "Wal-Mart runs a business, just like your Grandfather's pharmacy"

It's hardly a (I believe you call in the US) "Mom and Pop operation".

Without tiring mattboy with another quotation from his post... Why do you assume that all consumers want the lowest priced item? Even the lowliest consumer in the UK (whatever you may consider that to be) and I suspect the US, make informed and sometimes contrary to the norm. decisions. GM food is pretty much a no-no for the next 100 years in most forms in the UK (although we obviously consume more already than we could possibly realise) but it does not mean that we are willing to fund the uncertaintiity that is GM food, as a staple of our diet, as a whole. The same must surely be the same for many other consumer products?

I always balk at the argument that 'large' companies only provide "What we want", It's about as valid as the contrary argument. Neither really does justice to the causes.

Mattboy's assertion that people need to either put up or shut up is also true - if you put **** in you get **** out, it's a pretty well known formula. If you have ethical objections against Wal-Mart then it's really up to you to not shop there and let your consumer frustrations be known. I for one try to buy locally, rather than the Supermarket and also try to source the best ingredients for food I can afford, which obviously rarely includes the Supermarket. Not to say that SM's don't have their place, just not as an all pervasive force.

Basically, choose a spoon or a spatula and start COMBAT!

"They're trying to build right across the road from me"

same here, the community has been fighting it for quite some time. I think Wal-mart is going to win though.

I personally don't want them to build there.

Mara

Paul noted that Wal-Mart provides a low-quality product, but I have to disagree here. Wal-Mart sells the exact same name-brand items that every other retail chain does. They sell Heinz ketchup, they sell Coca-Cola, they sell DVDs from the exact same studios, they sell Energizer batteries, Goodyear tires, and Crest toothpaste. Granted, they sell Wal-Mart only items, such as Old Roy dog food, Sam's Choice (or Sam's Pride, can't remember), their own clothes, and their own jewelry. Target sells all the same name-brand items, and they also have Target-only lines.

I went to Wal-Mart tonight after golfing (it's about 2 blocks from the course), and bought a toilet seat, a car air freshener, a gallon of milk, facial cleanser, lawn fertilizer, a toilet bowl scrubber, and pack of Cool Green Apple Wrigley's gum. Name another store where I could get all that besides Wal-Mart or Target?

EDIT: I forgot to mention, that I did not get off the golf course until after 8:00 PM, so every other store in town is closed. Every other store except Wal-Mart.

I'll stop reading Paul's post now, as he apparently agrees with me.

===========================

Why do you assume that all consumers want the lowest priced item? Even the lowliest consumer in the UK (whatever you may consider that to be) and I suspect the US, make informed and sometimes contrary to the norm. decisions.

First off, I don't like how you are implying that I said something that I did not. Let's clear that up and then we can move on. I did not say that all consumers want the lowest priced item, nowhere in my post did I say that everyone wants the lowest priced item. I would hardly buy the lowest-priced automobile tires, and I never buy the store-branded groceries. I never buy store-branded medications, and I would never buy the lowest-priced television. What I said was that people shop at Wal-Mart because of the low prices. When I can buy the same car battery at Wal-Mart for $75, when the local repair shop wants $90, of course I'm going to go to Wal-Mart. Does that make Wal-Mart bad because they are selling the EXACT SAME ITEM for a lower price? No, it absolutely does not. Both parties are benefiting in the transaction, in that Wal-Mart is making money, and you are saving $15.

GM food is pretty much a no-no for the next 100 years in most forms in the UK (although we obviously consume more already than we could possibly realise) but it does not mean that we are willing to fund the uncertaintiity that is GM food, as a staple of our diet, as a whole. The same must surely be the same for many other consumer products?

I have absolutely no idea how this coorelates to Wal-Mart in any way. Are you saying that we shouldn't be eating food bought at Wal-Mart because it might be dangerous?

I always balk at the argument that 'large' companies only provide "What we want", It's about as valid as the contrary argument. Neither really does justice to the causes.

How can you say that an argument is not valid without stating why it is not valid. I could make statements like "I don't believe that the sky is blue" all day, but unless I explain why I think that, people are going to think I'm either extremely stupid or just plain crazy.

And don't get me wrong, I hate the fact that me shopping at Wal-Mart hurts small businesses, owned by people that I know personally. But you know what, the same people that complain about me shopping at Wal-Mart are the same people buying items online, which isn't helping ANYBODY local. At least if you shop at your local Wal-Mart, you are helping pay the wages of some local folks (even if it is the child molester in the shoes department)

I certainly hope that that is sarcasm because that is perhaps one of the most ignorant things I've ever read on the internet.

I guess the ":rolleyes:" wasn't enough of a hint, hmm?

Nos.