The Wal-Mart You Don't Know

Fast Company ^ | December 2003, | Charles Fishman

[LowCountryJoe]

My priority is freedom not whether laborers are entitled to secure employment. BTW, and I have thought that I've made this pretty clear, I think decisions (priorities is what you have labeled them) between labor or capital (heck land and human capital too) should be determined by the market...you know, MARKETS, those pesky systems that protectionists view as a necessary evil?

[LowCountryJoe]

Whatever. I'm sorry but I had mistaken you for someone who might have a counter-argument.

You really should have seen the sarcasm coming, your bad. Did you actually read your post (#147) and see if it answered the question that I posited to you? I mean, really...what kind of dignified response to you expect to your irrational position?

[CyberAnt]

"wild-assed conclusions"

As usual .. when you are losing the argument .. resort to name calling. How typical!

A company hires people for short shifts ON PURPOSE so the government doesn't require the employer to pay the employee medical or other benefits. This helps to keep employee hiring costs DOWN - AND PROFITS UP - and the fact the employer DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY THOSE MEDICAL COSTS - those savings can be passed on to customers.

ALL FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS DO THE SAME THING - it's not just Walmart. And .. it has nothing whatsoever to do with moral or ethical anything.

Like I said .. if you owned a business .....????

[shellshocked]

"wild-assed conclusions" is a name calling? DO you even speak English?

You don't get it, do you? Are you really so hard up to be right about Wal-Mart that you would just go off on a tirade like this, accusing people of something they never said?

I do own a business, do you? I bet you do because you keep pushing the statement as though you are dying for me to ask if you do. Go ahead, say how proud you are of owning a small business. Let's hear it so you can get it out of your system...

[CyberAnt]

YOU SAID: "wild-assed conclusions"

NOW YOU SAY: "accusing people of something they never said"

Like I said .. you have lost your argument and have resorted to accusations and saying my conclusion was "wild-assed".

Our conversation is over!

[Jaysun]

I disagree. A lot of the "innovations" that Microsoft adds to Word or Excel are negligible for most users. Many users were upgrading Office simply so they could open files created by newer versions. They weren't upgrading for the features. Of course a lot of home version of Office are pirated and it's largely businesses that now pay for it. They're the only ones usually buying MS Project, too, which is why the price is so steep. And they better license or else.

How could you possibly know that most users found the innovations negligible, that many of them were upgrading Office simply so they could open files created by newer versions, and that they weren't upgrading for the features?

While I blame Lotus for what happened to Lotus, you are aware that there are still lawsuits being filed over this ,right? Also, when Microsoft's products are too expensive, people pirate them. There is plenty of that going on, much to Microsoft's annoyance. I think that's part of the reason why they started selling lower cost "Small Business" and Word-only licenses.

I'm aware of the lawsuits and see them as absurd. Time will tell. There's an infinite number of products being "pirated" - everything from watches to sunglasses. If Microsoft's products were truly too exspensive they'd suffer from lower sales.

(Ma Bell) Because it's the classic recent case of monopoly busting.

I was lamenting because it requires a lengthy discussion, one I've had with Leftist until I'm blue in the face.

Well, if it's a mistake, then someone should tell the people regulating the cable television industry.

Agreed. I've sent several letters to Congress. I watch the likes of McCain hold hearings on the subject in disgust.

You are assuming that the competitors would have switched to a cooperative model rather than trying to drive each other out of business with proprietary technologies. I don't have a lot of faith in that sort of cooperation, and even where open standards exists, Microsoft and other vendors keep trying to change them in their own products so they can control them and shut competitors out of business. I'll also point you back toward what happened to WordPerfect with respect to the Windows API controlled by Microsoft.

I think you misunderstood my point. I was pointing to the fact that a government sanctioned monopoly wasn't needed. I didn't assume that the competitors would have switched to a cooperative model. I said, "In short order, however, the needs of the customers, merger, or improved technology would have overcome this problem."

I'm not concerned about a natural monopoly that exists because nobody else wants to compete. I'm concerned about monopolies that exist because nobody else can compete. It's only a matter of time before that sort of power gets abused.

I shouldn't have used the word "natural" because I can't think of a single business in which nobody else wants to compete. I was trying to point out that "monopolies" will exist naturally in a free market. Those that want to jump into competition with a large company are going to have problems because the large company has advantages (economy of scale for example) that the new company doesn't have. I believe that those advantages are earned by the larger company, and that they're to the consumer's benefit.

It's clear that there's very little that we can agree on here. That's OK. As I said from the onset, most people disagree with my view on this. However, I can think of one particular monopoly that I will gleefully join you in dismantling - the government. One more thing, I changed my tag line in your honor. ;o)

[shellshocked]

It's over because you are just thrashing about. Nothing more.

[Jaysun]

Go to Sams they're much cheaper. Better yet, refill. That'll teach the evil ink barons at WalMart (the kids suggestion was good).

I can't go to Sam's because it's been forbidden in my house (ever since my wife started dragging home 5 gallon buckets of mustard). I'll see if I can refill them without ruining my clothes and/or carpet.

[Jaysun]

Good point. Not only did oil save the whales from extinction but it put the whaling fleets out of business and yet the country prospered anyway. The whalers found other ways of making money. Life wil go on.

And the light bulb put the lamp makers out of business, and the automobile put the carriage makers out of business, and the refrigerator introduced the shaft to the men that delivered ice and milk....

You're right, progress isn't evil.

[Question_Assumptions]

How could you possibly know that most users found the innovations negligible, that many of them were upgrading Office simply so they could open files created by newer versions, and that they weren't upgrading for the features?

Working with people who manage IT departments? Reading trade journals? The backward incompatability included in many releases to force users to upgrade? But let me put it this way. How could you possibly know that Microsoft's improvements to Office are driven by customer need? I've got plenty of anecdotal evidence that it isn't. Do you at least have some anecdotal evidence that it is?

One the rest, I think we'll probably both be happier if I just agree to A disagree.

[ninenot]

Well, your thought is wrong.

That's why the US has safety laws, wage-and-hour laws, speed limits (hell, the market for speed is 70 mph--why is the road marked 25 mph?)

In other words, wiser heads than yours have seen the need for judicious regulation of capital resources. No different in the markets, to the dismay of the Rockefeller theives.

[ninenot]

Jay, most upgrades are done because the user reads his mail from MS--"...beginning xx/xx/20xx we will no longer support..."

MS' upgrades are based on a planned obsolescence model which was perfected by Detroit a number of years ago.

[Jaysun]

I've got plenty of anecdotal evidence that it isn't. Do you at least have some anecdotal evidence that it is?

No.

[Figment]

I can't go to Sam's because it's been forbidden in my house (ever since my wife started dragging home 5 gallon buckets of mustard)

Oh yeah, forgot the earlier post about Sam's. I know what you mean about the messy refill kits too. I was doing mine outside with rubber gloves on my old Canon. Got a new Epson recently and the kit is light years ahead, haven't spilled a drop yet

[jcb8199]

Awesome post.

[Mase]

Wal Mart spent 137.5 billion dollars with American suppliers last year
First off, that's a nice side-step.

Of that 137B, how much was produced ON SHORE?

"American suppliers" is irrelevant--it's "American-produced" that is important.

Secondly, how much was "American-supplied AND -produced" in 1975?

---

It's all moot anyway. Wal Mart's responsibility is to it's shareholders. If many of these products were produced onshore they would be too expensive to compete and no one would buy them. Do you understand the fact that inflation is low because American consumers are paying less for products thanks to companies like Wal Mart? Do you grasp how important low inflation is to our economic growth?

My reference to the $137.5 billion spent with American suppliers was to those on this thread who call Wal Mart anti-American. Any company that spends 55% of their total revenue - not cost of goods sold - with American companies, regardless of where they manufacture, is undeserving of this kind of bashing based on ignorance. $137.5 billion is more than the GDP of most countries. How many jobs do you think that kind of spending supports? From what I read, Wal Mart buys $15-$18 billion from China. You have no sense of proportion.

[Jaysun]

Oh yeah, forgot the earlier post about Sam's. I know what you mean about the messy refill kits too. I was doing mine outside with rubber gloves on my old Canon. Got a new Epson recently and the kit is light years ahead, haven't spilled a drop yet.

I'm having hell over here. After buying printer cartridges I discovered that the problem wasn't lack of ink, but a broken printer. I got a little upset and gently placed the damned thing in the trash can.

I'm not a "shopper" by nature, so I always go to Office Depot for this sort of thing. The kids there know me as an impatient impulse buyer and they always accommodate accordingly (I love them). I exited the store about 3 minutes after entering it with a new HP 9110.

This one machine supposedly handles color printing, color scanning, color copying, color faxing, and direct printing from a memory card. Super. I've been at it for several hours, and I haven't even managed to set the clock. This SOB has 4 cartridges (black, cyan??, magenta??, yellow) that apparently have to be set in place with surgical precision.

I know zilch about printers, especially ones that'll do everything except toast bread. I wish I could buy something that was fast and that didn't require me to constantly replace these satanic little ink cartridges. Any suggestions are welcome.

Sorry this is so long winded. I needed to let off a little steam.

[investigateworld]

LOL !!! I finally gave up on HP and now buy Lexmark garbage at 30 bucks a pop. I can "shot put" them to the dumpster and save myself a lot of grief.
But if anyone has a better idea, please keep this old Grandpa in mind.

[durasell]

You can buy a high quality printer for about $1,000. But in the long run it won't save you any money over a string of cheap ones.

[narses]

CyberAnt says:
There are 2 reasons Walmart is being attacked:

1 - they donate largely to REPUBLICANS

2 - they don't allow UNIONS


Three more:

They will NOT sell obscene music CDs
They will NOT sell RU-486
and
They donate money in support of SCHOOL CHOICE!