5/11 Debunk Walmart Myths, go to http://walmartfacts.com
See, they're not as bad as people think they are.
\_ Walmart is probably not as evil as a lot of people seem to think.
Walgreens on the other hand is infinitely more evil than almost
anyone realizes.
\_ Really? My wife worked for six years at the pharmacy dept. in a
Walgreen store, and she didn't think it was evil.
Walgreen store, and she didn't think it was evil. I don't shop
there often, but that's because prices are not low.
\_ According to WalMart, did the holocaust happen or not?
\_ What does the holocaust have to do with Walmart's business?
\_ If WalMart says it happened, then maybe it actually didn't.
\_ Wal-Mart is worse than most people think they are. It's not
because of how they treat their employees, but because of how
they treat their suppliers and how ruthlessly they compete with
their competitors.
\_ competition, oh the humanity.
\_ There is competition and there is ruthless competition. For
instance, Wal-Mart charges companies for display space
(as do a lot of companies) but with Wal-Mart is it
extortion. Wal-Mart often sells products for below cost
in a bid to drive others out of business, because they
have the leverage to do so. That is not good for
consumers or the economy. It is not healthy competition.
It is the systematic destruction of competition and
suppliers at the same time.
\_ Why don't you go file an anti-trust lawsuit then?
\_ I think someone ultimately will, but I'm certainly
not equipped to do so.
\_ The government files anti-trust lawsuits, not
private parties.
\_ You know, Wal-mart have been sued for predatory pricing
before. AFAIK, they have won in every case. Care to
provide research to back up your claim?
\_ Which claim? That Wal-Mart extorts money from
\_ Predatory pricing. Wal-mart has never been successly
sued for predatory pricing, i.e. selling products
below cost to drive out competitors. I assume it
would have been clear from the context. Mea Culpa.
\_ Wal-Mart has settled lawsuits, though, including
one in Wisconsin. They were also ordered by
a German court to stop selling items for
below cost.
suppliers? My dad worked for a big supplier to
Wal-Mart and Wal_mart said "If you don't pay us x
Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart said "If you don't pay us x
$$$ cash we will not stock your product. We don't
care if it sells or not." In this case x was a
number larger than the revenues generated and
Wal-Mart didn't give a shit. Wal-Mart then sets its
own price to move the product, which might possibly
be less than cost. They can "sell at a loss" because of
the cash they received up front and of course
people will buy the product at Wal-Mart because it
is cheaper there - nevermind it is bankrupting an
American company building product in America with
Americans labor. Target, on the other hand, doesn't
do that bullshit.
American labor. Target, on the other hand, doesn't
do that bullshit and so the company took their
business there. However, Wal-Mart is gradually
putting competition out of business and *then*
where do you distribute your product? Mom and pop
store? No one will buy it because they can buy
cheap Chinese knock-offs at Wal-Mart for less. Wal-Mart
doesn't care if it bankrupts suppliers as long as
they have the cash. There will be other suppliers -
an endless stream - right?
\_ Predatory pricing. Wal-mart has never been successly
sued for predatory pricing, i.e. selling products
below cost to drive out competitors. I assume it
would have been clear from the context. Mea Culpa.
\_ Wal-Mart has so much leverage over suppliers that it is
driving entire industries to China. They force prices so
low that the ONLY way for a company to keep going is to
oursource to China. Furthermore, they force every other
retailer to do the same thing or go out of business because
it allows them to sell hair dryers for $2 cheaper. Not to
mention all the money they suck out of the public treasury.
One good result from peak oil will be the end of WalMart.
Their whole business structure depends on 10,000 mile supply
chains which will become uneconomical in about 5-10 years
do to oil scarcity.
\_ Did you read the page at the URL above? It countered the
China and the public treasury claims. Please point out
what part of the page is lying.
\_ The URL doesn't really refute anything. It just
states facts. Pretty smart, actually. There is no
concept presented of what the facts really mean.
\_ Do you prefer counter-claims with no facts instead?
From the site: in 2004, $18b merchandise from Chinese
suppliers vs. $137.5b from US ones. Does that say
something?
\_ Not about my argument it doesn't. However,
what if it was true (I'm making this up) that
the numbers were higher/lower in 2003? While
their facts might be true, it doesn't
identify a trend. For all we know, that year
was a anomaly. --dim
\_ Look at the way they word it; I'm sure all their
bicycles are made in Asia but if they buy from
Huffy it's a "U.S. supplier." -tom
\_ The way they word it is that the $18b includes
"about $9 billion imported from direct sources
and about $9 billion from indirect sources".
So your hyperthetical Huffy bicycle would be in
the second $9b of the $18b.
\_ Bullshit. -tom
\_ Which part of the above quote from
Walmart is a lie?
\_ Maybe it's just me, but "they force every other retailer
to do the same thing [force prices so low that their
suppliers must outsource to China] or go out of business
because it allows them to sell hair dryers for $2 cheaper"
is a pretty amazing statement. Most monopolists force
out the competition so they can extract higher rent. But
*not* Walmart! Those bastards force out the competition
so they can charge *less*! That's just perverse. I hope
Walmart doesn't try to branch out and sell gas or
something. God knows I want to spend *more* on a fill up!
\_ Do you think once WalMart has totally eliminated
the competition their prices will remain low? Or
are you kind of dim?
\_ Oddly enough, I couldn't find any indication
that Walmart charges higher prices once it has
come to dominate a market -- and I've looked.
There are lots of people saying Walmart *could*,
or even Walmart *did*, but there's a complete
lack of data. There's nothing that says anything
to the effect that, in market N, after Walmart
has come to dominate, prices increased by x%, or
even the magnitude/frequency of price drops
decreased. Since you're so sure this happens, do
you have a reference? Not accusations, mind
you, but research. Or is your claim just so much
groundless MOTD propaganda?
groundless MOTD bluster?
\_ It's not about charging higher prices.
It's about declining quality and
destruction of the environment in the
pursuit of lower prices. Suppliers are
having their profit margins squeezed.
Some are going offshore. Others are
cutting benefits to their own employees
or downsizing. It's hard for those
suppliers to tell Wal-Mart to F*** off
when there is no other channel to
distribute since Wal-Mart has driven them
all under.
\_ Are you the "will prices remain low"
poster? If so, I take it that you don't
have research to back up your claim.
\_ No, I'm not.
\_ So who's pursing lower prices? Is it
Wal-mart or the consumers?
\_ Wal-Mart, in pursuit of consumers.
However, it's not about the lowest
price. Say, for example, that generic
cola is cheaper but dangerous.
Wal-Mart has an obligation not to
sell dangerous cola. Wal-Mart is
pushing lower prices, but consumers
don't always know what went into that
bargain. Now that people are finally
educating themselves Wal-Mart is not
as popular.
\_ Is that true? Yes, I know that
they just announced bad financials.
However, the market seems to think
that Wal-mart's problem is a bad
product mix plus financial discomfort
amongst Wal-mart's target market,
rather than some kind of popular
uprising against the company. Here's
a link of market research on Wal-mart
in Oklahoma City, which the company
dominates. It shows that Wal-mart's
*detractors* in fact are the 2nd
largest group of Wal-mart customers
(15% of total Wal-mart shoppers,
5.6 visits in 4 weeks, spending
$289). http://csua.org/u/c18
\_ It is true in California and
other places where Wal-Mart
has fought big political
battles just to get their
stores built. There are lot
of people opposed to Wal-Mart
- a lot more than, say, 20
(or even 10) years ago.
\_ People (would-be customers) in
favor of a store generally
don't put on a political battle
for it.
\_ Yes, they do. Have you
followed the news at
all? Supporters of
Wal-Mart pitted against
people opposed to it,
sometimes on the same
city councils.
\_ Do you seriously expect me to believe
that even when Walmart can raise their
prices because they have a monopoly, they
chose not too out of the goodness of
their hearts? You are the one making
the extraordinary claim here.
\_ Well, I can't prove that they never do
it. Impossible to prove a negative,
you know. However, Wal-mart corporate
dictates prices nationwide, and then
individual stores set deltas from the
national price. It's not clear whether
local managers have the power to do
* +/-n%, or whether the local authority
only extends to "specials". In any
case, I have not found *any* credible
research that shows Wal-mart extracting
monopoly rent, though there are plenty
of accusations. I will repeat my
challenge. If mine is such an incredible
claim, it should be trivial to find
evidence against it. There are many
markets where Wal-mart is dominant, after
all. Can *you* find any example of
Wal-mart raising prices *after* forcing
out the competition? And if you cannot,
then is my claim really so incredible?
Here's a ref. to market research on
Wal-mart in Oklahoma City, where Wal-mart
has 10 supercenters, 6 discount stores, 7
neighborhood markets, and 4 Sam's Clubs.
The study found Wal-mart to champion
low prices. In fact, "its low prices
and quality merchandise translate into
'looking out for me--the shopper'".
http://csua.org/u/c18
\_ I don't have the time or inclination
to do a cross market study, but if
someone had done it and it supported
it, you can bet Wal-Mart would
trumpet it. Just admit it, you have
to evidence your opinion, other than
your feelings.
your feelings. BTW, referecing that
bit of obvious marketing PR as evidence
doesn't really do much to prove your
case or improve your credibility.
\_ Like I expected, just so much MOTD
bluster without evidence or research.
Amazing as it seems, Wal-mart seems
to maintain low prices even after it
achieves dominance in a market.
\_ Just a lot of MOTD bluster without
evidence. Wal-Mart "seems" huh? Great
thread of argument.
\_ Look, this is not isolated to Walmart. It is just what super mega
corporations do. They care about the bottom line-- PROFIT. They
will do whatever it is profitable. Do you think corporations
actually have a soul and care about their employees? In reality,
they will do whatever it takes to be profitable, including
cutting benefits, hiring non-Unioned workers, squeezing other
businesses out, and buying imports instead of American. If one
day, they can replace all of the workers with cheap robots, they
will not think twice and do it, because it's profitable. It's
already happened in the outsourcing of Detroit, the entire
outsourcing of VISA/Mastercard support lines, etc. It's not just
Walmart. It's what big corporations do. And that's the bottom line.
\_ No, not every corporation operates like this - even big,
profitable ones. Example: Petco versus Petsmart. One is
vaguely aware of social issues and the other is oblivious.
\_ There was a debate about this on CSPAN recently:
rtsp://video.c-span.org/60days/ap050705.rm
I think there are serious problems with Wal-Mart, but more important
are the underlying issues with China trade.
\_ Wow. That Liza Featherstone is the most condescending bitch I've
ever seen. "Unions aren't a special interest" indeed. |
http://csua.com/feed/