The Wal-Mart You Don't Know

P.S. When I said...

As I see it, the smaller retailers today offer nothing more than the larger ones do.

I meant other than a higher price. A higher price is fine, but then offer an additional element of service.

As well, on that Vlassic Pickle thing, if Vlassic had never sold pickles in gallons to begin with, and only stuck with supermarkets, they wouldn't have gotten into the bind they were in. If some other "no name" pickle exceeded them, then the consumer apparently didn't believe them to be worth paying extra for.

"If I can buy the same product for less, I will."

Well, who wouldn't? But you, friend, along with most of the people I've read responding to this, seem to think that, if it's done in the name of capitalism and freemarkets, it's gotta be okay. I personally love Walmart for its prices, but maybe not so much for its values. I don't think people should be gouged, by any means, but I don't resent a fair profit now and then, either. This article explained, in large part, how this juggernaut called Walmart hurts supplier companies, then in turn hurting those companies' employees. The Vlasic pickle was a great example: A company spends generations building what was the "class act" in pickles, but then its foray into business with Walmart tears down the brand in a couple years.

People are also saying, you don't HAVE to do business with Walmart, just turn away. Not as easy as you think. If you're established in the consumer products busines, you're likely one of a handful of companies concentrating on your specialty--locks, batteries, fishing line, etc. Walmart is far too big a marketplace to ignore. But if you run after it, and get it, that can hurt you as much as not getting the account, in time.

"If I can buy the same product for less, I will," you say. Let's say your labor is a product (as, of course, it is). Let's say you get $20 per hour. Someone comes along and tells your employers, I can do it for $18. per hour. Your employer has no choice, right? Free markets, we can all do what we want, free to compete, etc. You step up and offer to work for $18 also.

So the guy who wanted your job at $18 (hey, I KNOW he's an illegal, let's not go there, that's another discussion), says, $15. Wait a minute, you need this job, you want to come back with another price. And there you are, in a backwards bidding war for your product. Who wins? Your employer, in the short run anyway.

Not a perfect example, but then, "examples" never have been perfect, no place, no time.

I'm as free-enterprise and let-the-markets decide as anybody on this site, so spare me all the lectures about how my head's in the wrong place on this. The reason all our previous knowledge doesn't quite work when discussing Walmart is, there's never been anything like this. I personally think that, in a decade or less, the government will step in to rein in WalMart. I don't quite know how, but I do think that, ultimately, WallyWorld is not good for us. Great prices are great, but we're giving up too much. I can drive to five different Wallys from my home in from 12 to 25 minutes. Now they want to put one closer to me, so I can get to it in 5 minutes. I've seen too many stores go out of business, too many people that have lost anything. We may be getting better prices, but I'm not sure we can afford it.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde (please, no homosexual radical agenda attacks): WalMart is a companya that knows the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

Just thoughts, friends.

"$25,000 and $100,000 grew rapidly from 2000 to 2002"

If $25,000 is middle-class, then okay... I guess you are right"

The article says:

"the number of returns reporting incomes between $25,000 and $100,000 grew rapidly from 2000 to 2002, while the number earning higher or lower incomes (including capital gains) diminished. By this measure, the middle class was expanding rather than shrinking."

Read: "between $25,000 AND $100,000". Incomes in that range have expanded between 2000 and 2002. And yes, this range would include the middle class. On your earlier reply you were referencing a comment about a manufacturing worker making $15.00 per hour plus benefits. That's more than $30,000 a year. You might not consider that middle class but the author does. If the worker was married and had a wife working the same kind of job, their combined income would be $55-$60,000. How do you define middle class?

Please note that people earning more than $100,000 a year saw a decline in incomes of 5.7% during that same period.

You deride the investor class but fail to realize that almost 60% of Americans are invested in the stock market so the investor class is much bigger than class warriors such as yourself realize.

If Wal Mart is single handedly decimating the middle and lower class in this country how do you explain the fact that the middle class is expanding?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.