Now, it is hard to see into the mind of the liberal, but even when trying to understand that liberals think differently, I still cannot find what the personal vendetta against Wal-mart is.
To me, Wal-mart represents the true success of the American dream and is the perfect image of American capitalism and success. Wal-mart as a business provides a massive host of products and services, working to the convenience of the American consumer. Further, thanks to its size and successful marketing, Walmart has been able to provide quality prices on a massive variety of objects which has helped undoubtedly every consumer, American and foreign, regardless of financial situation. The low priced products and services of Wal-mart has been especially influential in aiding the American consumer int he deep recession of today.
One of Wal-mart's greatest contributions to the world has been employment. As a large corporation (gasp!), Wal-mart employs roughly 2,100,000 people! The massive number of people employed by Wal-mart receive a good income, which in turn can return to market through spending and purchasing of goods (why not at Wal-mart!).
Wal-mart also represents the triumph of globalization. As Wal-mart branches across the world, it can provide the same beneficial products and services to those who need the low-priced goods and employment the most.
Obviously these are successes in the simplest terms, but I am curious as to what those who dislike Wal-mart are actually angry about.
Yes. I agree that Wal-Mart is "good". Wal-Mart is good when it comes to operating sweatshop, which involves dangerous work condition, force labor, and the contribution of the modern system of slavery. Cheap prices are great as long as people don't know about the exploitation and imperialism of the third world countries. People suffer because we have allowed luxury to blind our eyes. We may hear, but we refuse to see.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Forced labor is one thing, but what exactly is wrong with exploiting an abundance of cheap labor in other countries? I consider myself extremely liberal but Wal-Mart never fills me with righteous fury.
But in China, literally hundred of millions of desperately poor people have been lifted up out of dire poverty towards something approaching a decent existence by those sweat shops.
And the reason Walmart is able to put other businesses out of business is because their customers love them. Walmart's low prices allow lots of less wealthy Americans to enjoy a higher standard of living.
Walmart is great! The only time I get upset with them is when they engage in illegal activity like a couple of years ago when it turned out they were deliberately sub-contracting janitorial services to illegal aliens.
What is wrong with explioting cheap labor from other countries? Maybe it has something to do with DEBT SLAVERY, lies, false document to expliot people, 24/7 harsh labor condition, imprisonment, beating when people take rest from work, death threat when people try to escape work condition, human trafficking, explioting children around the age of 10-12, and so many more thing that people don't even know about. Sweatshop don't lift people out of debt, I would like to see something that prove this on a wide scale. Swetshop put people further in debt by what is call debt slavery. People are promise free housing and job with rich campany but reality is that the housing is not free and the company are sweatshop that pay less than the housing cost, which in turn create more debt. Numerous people try to escape sweatshop condition but are held by force or kill.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0309/feature1/
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
"Wal-Mart is good when it comes to operating sweatshop, which involves dangerous work condition, force labor, and the contribution of the modern system of slavery." I don't underastand how you can say this because Walmart does not operate sweatshops and instead sells the products produced by a variety of other companies, all of which greatly benefit from their business with Walmart. You sound like the perfect example of a misinformed liberal.
Now, even though Walmart does not operate sweatshops, I would like to address what you say about "sweatshops." It is true that are are dangerous business conditions in areas of the world. However, developed nations such as the United States and G.B. also had many such difficult working conditions in their industrial revolutions, a process which is the reason that you are able to enjoy a comfortable living in the united States and be using such a fine piece of technology right now.
Now, as an example, I'd like to look at the nation of Somalia. In Haiti, the country is unstable because of a lack of a government. The government can't do anything because there are no businesses that generate a GDP and tax income for the government to actually operate and provide basic services. I am positive that those same Haitians who do not have any form of income, live int eh filthiest conditions in the world, and suffer everyday would love to have a job, no matter how difficult the conditions. Any form of employment is a good employment, and if the Haitians have an opportunity to work and receive minuscule wages, even if it is in a sweatshop, I am sure that they would appreciate the opportunity of the labor.
Unfortunately for them, they don't have the same generous government welfare which hands out money to those who are lazy asses (thank you liberals). Therefore, those Haitians need employment, and that is exactly what Walmart is providing indirectly to impoverished nations, If you liberlas had it your way, no business would ever even have the opportunity to help those suffering who mare only looking for a chance in life to work and be rewarded, however small the salary.
Unfortunately, there are sweat shops with forced labor and no pay. However, these facilities are not the majority in any which way and even the existence of them does not mean that Walmart owns and operates them because that would be blatant, uninformed lie probably coming for (let me guess) a liberal or as they like to be called ( because liberal is rightly a dirty name) progressives.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
"Misinformed liberal", you called me. What an ignorance statement. For your information, I do not consider myself to be liberal or conservative. I see what is right and wrong, then work for or against it. That is all.
"Wal-Mart does not operate sweatshops" because you refuse to acknowledge it.
http://www.ufcw.org/press_room/fact_sheets_and_backgrounder/walmart/swea...
When you talk about Somalia, from my perceptive, you seem to lack knowledge of it actual condition. Yes, there is a lack of government. But there are other factors that contribute to Somalia's poor condition. One example is Western nation's illegal dumping of waste off the coast of Somalia, which destroy their food resources.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/you-are-being-lied-to-abo_b_15...
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
You have to be kidding me. Now first of all, i read the article you linked to, and it explicity says "Wal-Mart was removed from KLD & Co.’s Domini 400 Social Index because of what it called ‘sweatshop conditions’ at its overseas vendors’ factories." This means that a independent company is purchasing goods from "sweat shops" and then selling them to Walmart. How is Walmart directly responsible for employing people in sweat shops? And you attack Walmart obviously because it represents the success of capitalism, however, i would not be afraid to wager that the clothes on your back on manufactured under similar conditions.
Now beyond the fact that Walmart isn't even directly an employer of sweat shop workers, could you have possibly chosen an article with any more bias? Do you realize that the article is complete propaganda from the UFCW, who has had direct confrontations from Walmart. How can anyone expect their information to be non-biased? These are the same unions that are working to secure good wages and labor for a few select citizens, while hundreds of others have to be laid off or not employed in the first placer and continually eat away at company profits so that business cannot even thrive. These are the same unions that have been dragging the American economy down for decades. why do you think that companies move overseas, depleting the number of jobs? It is these same unions that won't let companies make a profit without greedily want a stake in any profit and demanding ridiculous benefits for the lowest skilled jobs.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
You statement on Wal-Mart not being directly involve in sweatshop also state that Wal-Mart is indirectly involve in sweatshop. Wal-Mart is funding sweatshop condition either way. It is just as bad. The UFCW want to achieve better condition for workers, families, and communities, which is why they are in confrontation with Wal-Mart. Information’s from UFCW are "complete propaganda." You wish that that was true. You make it sound like Wal-Mart is honest and also not bias. What a joke. Job loss is due to labor union. I am not even going to response to such idiotic statement.
What is most laughable is when you mention the "success of capitalism." If you really understand what capitalism is, than you must know that the $700 billion to bail company in the previous year totally disprove America's capitalist system.
Lastly, it's quite clear that we have chosen side on this topic. So far, you have nothing to support any of your claims. Say your last word. I am tire of your ad hominem & straw-man argument.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin
Job loss is due to labor union. I am not even going to response to such idiotic statement.
The only thriving industry that is heavily unionized is government. And that is because they have the taxpayers to milch like a cow. They are bankrupting the taxpayers of California but the union workers are living fat and high.
Every other heavily unionized industry is either defunct, dying or in trouble. Steel is non-existent, Airlines have been sucking wind for years. The automotive industry is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Grocery stores cannot compete with Super Walmarts. The railroad refuse to invest and can barely compete with trucking. The Teamsters are terrified of a little competition from Mexico in either ports or trucking. And unionized construction is all but non-existent having been almost completely replaced with illegal labor.
I think the tie between unions and job loss is fairly evident and well established. I don't see anything idiotic about that observation. Unions kill not just jobs but entire industries.
you're not looking at the fact that there are unfortunately many sweatshops in the world, although a majority are not forced labor. In fact, you use the term sweatshop when the truth is that there are just working sites with inadequate standards from a western viewpoint. How can you expect the businesses in developing nations, which lift millions out of poverty, to provide expensive working conditions with ac, a lot of working space, and free time. It is just not possible. Now you criticize Walmart for "indirecty" being involved in sweatshops and, yes, you can draw that connection. But SO WHAT! I am sure that the clothes on your back were made in inadequate working conditions, but do you go around attacking various clothing companies? At heart, this anti-walmart movement is a campaign against a successful system which is beneficial to all aspects of society withoput having to put up with the damaging and "business-killing" effects of labor unions.
As jackbenimble wisely says, what the hell are you talking about!!! The concept of labor union and i9ts activities = job loss is simple arithmetic yet you refuse to answer the "idiotic statement" because you can't answer it and are misinformed. When a company is forced to play its employees more (most of the time more than they deserve for their labor) for less work and include more benefits for its employees than it already does means that Walmart cannot employ as many people and still make a profit!
Now to respond to your capitalism statement, once again you are acting like a misinformed liberal. The free market and true laissez-faire capitalism has never even been given a chance!!! The only taste of some deregulation came in the 80's and 90's when Reagan and Clinton's form of capitalism created the age of globalization and lifted over 800 million people out of Western standards poverty!!! Of Course liberals want to forget that success and want to return to the same system socialist system that has enslaved millions and prevented the opportunities of globalization from reaching the real hard-working people in developing nations that are happy to produce goods for Walmart and receive a pay, no matter what it is. I believe that the banking crash is the result of government interference in finance! In the late 70's, Jimmy Carter created Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac to "help Americans with mortgages." This kind of socialist thinking is what got us into this mess, as these mortgage companies allowed idiots to buy inordinately expensive houses, goods , services, etc. all while the freakin government was backing such transactions with lower cost mortgages and the sale of resulting debt to China. Eventually, the banks got into the virtually free taxpayer money the government was handing out by backing various transactions and the bubble burst. We have never even gotten a taste of true capitalism yet you liberals pronounce it dead!
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
They also do a fantastic job of barging into small, rural areas where there are few companies to begin with and push those companies out of business. They also managed to put rubermaid out of business-its now owned by a Chinese company.
I know a frequent argument is going to be "If those businesses couldn't compete, then they don't deserve to be in business." Its a theory I like to call Economical Darwinism, and normally I agree. However, these are areas that are so sparsely populated that they really can't get much business. But all areas deserve necesary products. Then, Wal-mart moves in, and it serves a fairly large area. Its easier to make one stop than several, and the local companies begin to lose business. The mall near my school used to serve most of the southern part of the state. But now with two Wal-marts, both in either direction of it and the counties that were normally ignored as far as chains, are getting Wal-marts. They have access to products they didn't before wouldn't otherwise, more and more stores in the mall are closing.
Like what you've read? Well, then here's more:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/tricia0711
I live in a small rural town. Walmart has been great here. They caused a few marginal businesses to close but generally the economic climate of our town has been improved. Walmart forced the good businesses to get better. They can't necessarily compete on price but they can compete by offering value in other ways like better quality or a better selection or better service. Almost 20 years years after Walmart showed up here, most of the long established businesses are still in business and we have dozens of new businesses too that have grown up around the Walmart complex. It would be devastating for this town if Walmart were to close.
Walmart can employ more people than the small businesses they compete with. I can say surely as well that Walmart would pay its employees better than the small shops.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
Lets get this straight Competition is one thing but aggressively pushing small and medium sized companies out of business or into operations in the third world is another! For anyone who doesnt know Walmarts essential tactic is to be so big that almost any business has to sell there to stay competitive. Having said that Walmart will go to these grass roots American , Canadian , European companies and this is how it goes
Small Co Usa "hey we'd like to sell in your stores"
Walmart "how much will you sell your item to us for?"
Small Co Usa "8.50 each"
Walmart "make it 5.70 each"
Small Co Usa "we cant do that!"
Walmart "too bad"
Small Co Usa ":( we'll have to close our American plant and move it to China for cheap labor costs"
All the sudden all those AMERICAN workers previously working at the small co factory for $15 and hour plus benefits are now at walmart working for $5.50 an hour with no healthcare or dental ! Thus why walmart is Unamerican
- JaSOn
Wal-mart sales associates (the lowest paying and most common Walmart job) make anywhere from $6-$11 per hour, depending where you live, not $5.50, and the pay increases if you do things like work at a cash register or in the deli. Both full and part time employees are offered health benefits packages, and those packages were improved in 2007 to better meet employee needs. You may not like Walmart's business strategy, and that's fine, but you should at least have correct information before ranting about how they treat their employees.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
My information may not be 100% accurate but the point is they use a corporate tactic which is unsustainable and bad for our econemy . Most of the people who work at Walmart dont have much of a chance for advancement in the company and you cannot support a family on 11 dollars an hour. What im saying is they dont replace the jobs they send over seas .
Not only that but Walmart has a record of fair play that is sketchy at best. They dont allow unions, they go into towns and cities with the goal of putting mom and pop business under with low prices that are only sustainable with chinese made goods . I'll admit Walmart isnt the only company to do this but that doesnt make it anymore wrong
- JaSOn
Thanks to Sawaboof we have been presented with factual information on the employment practices of Walmart. You have now moved onto to conceptual arguments.
The truth is that your statement is based with wild accusations. Sure, Walmart as any business is attempting to make a profit so it can expand, pay expenses, and continue business. But it is just ridiculous to claim that a company has the intent of "putting mom and pop business under with low prices that are only sustainable with chinese made goods." Walmart is engaging in a completely legal business practice of supplying goods at a low price for the purpose of selling more products and attracting customers, not for the purpose of putting small companies out of business! Think about the accusation you are making.
Now there are obvious downsides to the practices of Walmart in trying to be a successful business, however, if they were engaging in illegal monopolistic activities then they would have been brought to court and convicted long ago by you same naysayers.
Walmart, as stated, provides far more employment that small businesses in the region can, often provides better pay and benefits, and actually works to keep away labor unions which have the been the plague on our American system for far too long. Please refer to the numerous comments already made on the benefits of Walmart and please rethink the accusations you are making and return to the argument with conceptual and thought-out statements.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
Ofcoarse Walmart isnt an evil corporation and there main goal isnt to put mom and pop stores out of business but merely a side effect of their business . I find it hard to believe that walmart employes more people then ALL the business they put under and even if they are , they are also hurting the owners of the business who they put under who I can garentee are not getting a better paid job at Walmart . You might be supprised how much of a blow it is to places like downtown areas when a Walmart goes in near by . Due to the size of Walmart they dont have to compete fairly with small retail stores because they get a far better deal on the goods they buy and sell just because they buy so much.
It is insane to try and make out like Walmart is doing a good thing by not allowing and fighting union culture. You forget why unions are around in the first place in order to stop huge corperations from taking advantage of their employees. Unions came around because workers were being treated horribly , so horribly that there was a threat of a socialist backlash (communist revolution) . Companies cant be trusted to do the right thing on there own, including doing whats best for their employees . In the end if they can make a buck on it they'll do it. That is exactly why the world econemy is in the mess its in right now because deregulation allowed companies to run free without any thought about the conceqences of what they were doing in the future.
Assuming that if Walmart was a monopoly, it would be broken up is also fairly nieve. The government doesnt want to brake up big business even if its in the best intrests of the capitalist system. In a capitalist system no company should be to big to fail . The government should have broken up General Motors , Ford and many of the big banks years ago and are paying for it now . Just because a company isnt the only player in the market doesnt mean there not a monopoly . No one is threatening or even potentially threatening Walmarts business so they can do basically as they please and dont have to continue coming up with a competitive edge . Businesses should always feel obligated to do a better job and revolutionize because if they dont in a normal capitalist society they would go out of business because there competitors would do what they werent. I just dont see that in Walmart .
- JaSOn
Just think of how much more people could do if, instead of wasting their time ranting questionable "facts" about Walmart throughout the day, they instead spent that time promoting local businesses.
Like this:
The 350 Project
I've seen you write many, many things about how evil Walmart is, and most of those things aren't really based on facts. I have not seen you say one thing that actually promotes the local businesses you claim Walmart is putting out of business.
Less blame, more action.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
The vast majority of the people who spend a lot of time attacking Walmart are politically on the left or the far left.
Think about it. When did you ever see a leftist who really gave a damn about small business (or any business)? They certainly have no problems taxing or regulating them into oblivion so it is hard to take their professed deep concern about the negative effects of competing with WalMart very seriously.
The hatred of Walmart is mainly the result of Walmarts refusal to be unionized. If Walmart ever succombs to unionization, all of this deep concern for small retail businesses (mostly un-unionized) will evaporate.
Actually most of my arguement had no facts. I was using basic theory and ideas which in my mind (and believe me i know i am just a phyco left winger) makes sense. No one is threatening Walmarts business and they are anti-union and union is something that makes America and the Western world what it is, look up what was going on in the US before the union came along. If you have a counter arguement to that i'd love to hear it , and some how i feel putting up a bunch of fliers for local businesses wouldnt be as affective as an arguement which I think made some very good points. But then again im a crazy left winger.
- JaSOn
Except for government employees, most unionized industries are shrinking. Most American workers are not unionized. And most Americans have negative views of unions.
Unions over the years have done some good for workers and they have also done them a lot of harm. The latest example of harm is the auto industry. The unionized companies are all dying whereas the non-unionized companies look like they will survive and thrive.
Unions played some role in improving conditions for workers but most of these improving conditions were the result of supply and demand.
The worst periods in our history for workers were the guilded age at the end of the 19th century characterized by sweatshops and child labor and the Great Depression characterized by high unemployment. The reason workers were in bad shape was excessive supply which made them very expendable and therefore vulnerable to abuse. In the first case the supply excess was caused by excessive immigration and in the second case it was caused by a continuation of excessive immigration plus a shrinking economy. The unions grew during this period but did little good for their members. They were unable to overcome the laws of supply and demand for labor and there was simply too much supply.
The best periods in American History for workers were the post-WWI periods through about 1970 and about 1985 through 2000. These eras were characterized by tight labor markets which caused workers to be valued and treated well. The unions played a role in capturing a bigger piece of the pie for workers and were successful to the point where in the 1970s they played a big role in killing several industries and causing the wage-price spiral that made stagflation so miserable.
Reagan beat the unions back and prosperity returned.
Now we are back in a period where we have had 30 years of excessive immigration far beyond our historic norm (and that is before you consider massive illegal immigration). We now have an oversupply of workers and a shrinking economy. And the unions are fighting for more immigration because they are more interested in milking their members for dues then improving their lives. They won't be able to do much good for their members because once again there is too much supply.
The unions are mixed and largely negative bag.
you make some plausible historical arguments... but are unions really "fighting for more immigration"? Can you prove it?
I went back and re-read my source and I mispoke.
They are fighting for amnesty for the 12 million illegal aliens that are already here. That will make it a lot easier for them to apply for jobs that unemployed Americans are trying to get so it is not exactly in the best interests of American workers.
Labor battle looming on immigration
Blaming unions for much of the failure in North America isnt really fair. The auto industry isnt failing because there unions are taking to much (although I admit it doesnt help) they are failing because of an unfair market . You see Toyota , Honda and all other forign auto makers have been aloud into the United States and the American auto makers home markets with no strings attached , well the European and Japanese markets have been mostly gated to the American auto makers, where there home campanies are aloud to dominate the market. This means a massive shrink in market share in north america for ford , gm and crysler where they used to control about 90% of the market they now control only about 50% . But in europe european auto makers still control about 85% and same in Japan. Not to mention at GM there are I think 3 or 4 pentioners for every worker where as Toyota has less then one pentioner for every worker because they havent been producing in NA very long. Not to mention the mass mismanagement of the companies throughout the 80s and 90s.
Also Regan wasnt successful because he fought Unions Regan was successful becuse he irresponsibley cut government regulation on industries and slashed taxes for the rich. Single handedly starting the culture of Commercial corruption and cheating and the dominence of the rich. Exactly what we are paying for now. Taxes on the rich used to go as high as 70% but after all the Republian money grabs the top tax rate now lies at 30% . One of the main reasons why the rich are now rediculously rich and the poor and still poor and why Americas Visa bill is 10 trillan and growing.
Unions arnt to blame for the failure of American industry , greed , mismanagment and the natural rise in wealth are.
- JaSOn
I'll concede that to some extent what you say about foreign markets being closed is partially true.
But so what? Your argument might actually make sense if the American auto makers were not getting their butts so thoroughly kicked in the domestic market too. They definately enjoy a level playing field here. Yet they have been losing market share here and most of the "foreign" autos that are kicking their butt are actually made in America by non-unionized labor. Actually I guess the playing field is not fair.
The problem for the big 3 is that they can't afford to make a car that anyone wants to buy. Before they even start building the car they are at least $1000 in the hole compared to their competition because of their high union labor costs. There is not much profit in little cars so this forces them to focus on more profitable big cars which have higher profit margins. When they do make small cars they have to leave out $1000 worth of features or quality to hit the same price points. When gas prices go up or the economy goes down, nobody wants a big car and the Big 3 suck wind due to their excessively high union labor costs that make them uncompetitive.