| Author |
Topic: Wal-Mart supports traditional Country |
David Mason
From:
Cambridge, MD, USA
|
Posted 25 Dec 2006 5:56 am |
|
In some areas of the country over 60% of Wal-Mart employees are receiving foodstamps, Medicaid, free school lunches etc., because they are so adept at keeping people off the full-time eligibility rolls and because their health care plans are too expensive for employees anyway. In a sense, it's a shift of money from other working taxpayers towards large corporate employers - WalMart employees really, really would work elsewhere if there was a better-paying elsewhere. WalMart even encourages their employees to sign up for these programs, because they're sure not going to give them a raise.
The problem is systemic, unfortunately, having to do with the legal evolution of a corporation into an entity with all the rights of a person and none of the responsibilities of a citizen. Oh well, we'll just borrow another few trillion from China to pay for it all, what could possibly go wrong with that?  [This message was edited by David Mason on 25 December 2006 at 05:59 AM.] |
|
|
 |
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 25 Dec 2006 9:07 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| they force companies that do business with them to agree not to sell products to other companies for the price they buy at. They kill all the local competition by centering themselves in low income areas where their clientele have little choice but to go where things are cheap, then when they kill off the competitors they jack 'em up again. |
With all due respect, if this were true, then Walmart would be facing some stiff penalties for violating anti-trust laws and unfair competition laws. If you don't believe this, then you basically have no faith in the government.
| Quote: |
| In some areas of the country over 60% of Wal-Mart employees are receiving foodstamps, Medicaid, free school lunches etc., because they are so adept at keeping people off the full-time eligibility rolls and because their health care plans are too expensive for employees anyway. |
it sounds like you're implying that if if weren't for Walmart, all these people WOULDN'T be receiving foodstamps, Medicaid, free school lunches, etc.
| Quote: |
| the legal evolution of a corporation into an entity with all the rights of a person and none of the responsibilities of a citizen. |
Not that it matters a whole lot, but that's a bit of an overstatement. Individual citizens have more rights than a corporation has. For example, citizens have the right to vote, the right to counsel if they can't afford counsel, etc.
But, I'm really curious about this -- what responsibilities do individual citizens have that corporations don't?
| Quote: |
| Oh well, we'll just borrow another few trillion from China to pay for it all |
Ah, China. If only most people would do some research into this issue. One main problem with the trade imbalance with China is that the Chinese government, by manipulation, purposely keeps Chinese currency devalued for the sole reason of racking up a huge trade surplus. There are also many other things the Chinese government does or fails to do just to give themselves a big edge economically. |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 25 Dec 2006 9:28 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| they force companies that do business with them to agree not to sell products to other companies for the price they buy at. They kill all the local competition by centering themselves in low income areas where their clientele have little choice but to go where things are cheap, then when they kill off the competitors they jack 'em up again. |
With all due respect, if this were true, then Walmart would be facing some stiff penalties for violating anti-trust laws and unfair competition laws. If you don't believe this, then you basically have no faith in the government.
| Quote: |
| In some areas of the country over 60% of Wal-Mart employees are receiving foodstamps, Medicaid, free school lunches etc., because they are so adept at keeping people off the full-time eligibility rolls and because their health care plans are too expensive for employees anyway. |
it sounds like you're implying that if if weren't for Walmart, all these people WOULDN'T be receiving foodstamps, Medicaid, free school lunches, etc.
| Quote: |
| the legal evolution of a corporation into an entity with all the rights of a person and none of the responsibilities of a citizen. |
Not that it matters a whole lot, but that's a bit of an overstatement. Individual citizens have more rights than a corporation has. For example, citizens have the right to vote, the right to counsel if they can't afford counsel, etc.
But, I'm really curious about this -- what responsibilities do individual citizens have that corporations don't?
| Quote: |
| Oh well, we'll just borrow another few trillion from China to pay for it all |
Ah, China. If only most people would do some research into this issue. One main problem with the trade imbalance with China is that the Chinese government, by manipulation, purposely keeps Chinese currency devalued for the sole reason of racking up a huge trade surplus. There are also many other things the Chinese government does or fails to do just to give themselves a big edge economically. |
|
|
|
Gene Jones
From:
Oklahoma City, OK USA, (deceased)
|
Posted 25 Dec 2006 9:52 am
|
|
| * [This message was edited by Gene Jones on 25 December 2006 at 04:39 PM.] |
|
|
|
Scott Shipley
From:
The Ozark Mountains
|
Posted 25 Dec 2006 9:56 am
|
|
You guys are giving way too much "credit" to Wal Mart. Anderson Merchandising in Texas is responsible for what makes it to the shelves, not the suits in China.
And (he says while ducking) sorry, but my "bluegrass vow of poverty" won't allow me to shop with a flag in my pocket.  |
|
|
|
Dave Mudgett
From:
Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee
|
Posted 25 Dec 2006 10:42 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| With all due respect, if this were true, then Walmart would be facing some stiff penalties for violating anti-trust laws and unfair competition laws. If you don't believe this, then you basically have no faith in the government. |
With all due respect, look at what happened to Microsoft even after they were found guilty of antitrust and anti-competitive practices. From a practical point of view - nothing. There is definitely a big gap in the this government's credibility when it comes to antitrust, IMO.
That said, I don't think that all our economic problems can be hung on Wal-Mart. I think you also have to look at the government - and those that put them there. But this is getting too close to politics for me. |
|
|
|
David Mason
From:
Cambridge, MD, USA
|
Posted 25 Dec 2006 10:55 am
|
|
This is a huge subject, but essentially corporate lawyers have been using the 14th Amendment (freeing the Southern slaves) to claim Constitutional personal rights for a thing, an economic entity - corporations were originally only chartered for specific purposes (build a bridge, develop a harbor) then dissolved. It's been going on since the 1800's, with varying success. Right now, our anti-trust laws at are a very low strength, as low as during the "robber baron" days.
Originally:
quote:
Corporations were forbidden from attempting to influence elections, public policy, and other realms of civic society.
Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.
Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.
Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.
Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.
Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.
Obviously, the lawyers have been busy... "More and more frequently, corporations were abusing their charters to become conglomerates and trusts. They converted the nation's resources and treasures into private fortunes, creating factory systems and company towns. Political power began flowing to absentee owners, rather than community-rooted enterprises."
Link to this introduction: Corporate "Personhood"
Email me backchannel if you want, economics is not actually a huge hobby of everyone on the forum, perhaps?
[This message was edited by David Mason on 25 December 2006 at 10:59 AM.] |
|
|
|
Lynn Trimble
From:
New Mexico, USA
|
Posted 25 Dec 2006 4:25 pm
|
|
David, your quotes were certainly an eye opener. Do you reckon there were any tax lawyers involved? Seems like Wal-Mart is one of those double edge swords that can help some and hurt others. We sure lost some Mom and Pop stores in our area when they came in. One good thing that happened,and I don't know how much the company had to do with it,was at least provide a soapbox for some well-deserved and long overdue thanks to the WW II Vets.
|
|
|
|
Alvin Blaine
From:
Picture Rocks, Arizona, USA
|
Posted 26 Dec 2006 2:17 am
|
|
| I thought this thread was about the country music Cd's at Wal-Mart? |
|
|
|
Thom Beeman
From:
California, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 26 Dec 2006 12:32 pm
|
|
One point no one seems to want to reflect is the reason corp. like Wal-Mart and Best-Buy so out of the country to get there products (and don't kill the messenger because I use to belong to them), is the Labor union's. When a floor sweeper get $18.50 an hour and people in his community that arn't union get $7 to $10 an hour. Then the union strike's for more money and better benefit's and the other guy has to put out for his own. There is a problem. In my area the only people that complain about Wal-Mart are the labor unions and there greedy membership.
Where's the love of country and community when all your thinking about is fattening your own checkbook. The majority of your community cannot afford shopping at the inflated prices, in the union stores.
But as usual, everything is the governments fault, right? Wrong.
ERIC, your right they have great CD's at good prices and for a guy on social security the price is right.[This message was edited by Thom Beeman on 26 December 2006 at 12:35 PM.] |
|
|
|
Brad Sarno
From:
St. Louis, MO USA
|
|
|
|
Greg Simmons
From:
where the buffalo (used to) roam AND the Mojave
|
Posted 26 Dec 2006 2:50 pm
|
|
Yeah, the nerve of some workers wanting a living wage, and benefits too...sheesh.
But, getting somewhat back on topic, if Billy Bragg cut a country CD in Nashville and used Union session guys, would any self-respecting Wal-Mart carry it? |
|
|
|
Barry Blackwood
|
Posted 26 Dec 2006 3:00 pm
|
|
| Thom, to validate your argument, I think we need to determine WHO is the greedier here - Wal Mart, or the union worker? |
|
|
|
erik
|
Posted 26 Dec 2006 4:02 pm
|
|
I'm a wage worker, just got word today that all driver's (that's me) hours will be cut to 32 to avoid a larger lay-off and so everyone can still keep their benifits. Am I complaining? No, because I live within my means and can still afford the occasional luxury. Think I might upgrade my MP3 player to a Creative Zen V 4mg. But should I buy it at WalMart or Circuit City, that IS the question.
Oh, almost forgot: I was just at WalMart buying my case of Nestle water and at the checkout I recognized the cashier supervisor and squared away my faux paux of last week where I threw a chapstick into my cart not realizing it landed in my box of shoes and didn't pay for it. She had me run one through the scanner then she put it back. My list of favorite stores:
Stop & Shop
Wal-Mart
Home Depot
------------------
-johnson
[This message was edited by erik on 26 December 2006 at 04:15 PM.] |
|
|
|
Tracy Sheehan
From:
Fort Worth, Texas, USA
|
Posted 26 Dec 2006 6:28 pm
|
|
| Hate to bring bad news but look at the labels when you buy clothes,etc.Wal Mart is the only place i know of that sells country cd's here.Here is the rest of the story.I bought a lite jacket at Wal Mart for 9.98.The same brand jacket made in India was 29.95 at Sears. Nuff said. |
|
|
|
Thom Beeman
From:
California, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 26 Dec 2006 6:58 pm
|
|
Greg, We haven't met so I have question, Do you still live in Canada?
Do they have Wal-Mart stores in Canada? Don't know the answer to either question that's why I'm asking. Thank you |
|
|
|
Greg Simmons
From:
where the buffalo (used to) roam AND the Mojave
|
|
|
|
Thom Beeman
From:
California, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 27 Dec 2006 12:01 am
|
|
| Thank's Bro' |
|
|
|
Edward Meisse
From:
Santa Rosa, California, USA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2006 12:23 am
|
|
[This message was edited by Edward Meisse on 27 December 2006 at 11:58 PM.] [This message was edited by Edward Meisse on 27 December 2006 at 11:58 PM.] |
|
|
|
Paul King
From:
Gainesville, Texas, USA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2006 5:01 am
|
|
| I believe Sam Walton would roll over in his grave if he could see how his children have turned out to be so money hungry. I know one lady who will not shop at WalMart because of the "Garth Brooks mentality" as she put it. I do see many country music products in their music department but I do not believe it is because they prefer country music. It is all about money, except when it comes to their employees, whom they pay very little in wages. They have a distribution center close to our town and they have no heat in the winter and no A/C in the summer. Anyone else done that they would be in hot water for the working conditions. I do shop at WalMart, not because I believe in the company or their products, but because it more convenient for us locally. |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2006 9:08 am
|
|
I'm not a labor expert, but my personal (uneducated) opinion on labor unions is as follows:
1) we are inexorably moving toward a globalized economy;
2) in a globalized economy, the countries with artificially inflated costs (relative to other countries) will lose in the long run;
3) wages set purely as the result of collective bargaining have at least some element of an artificially inflated cost;
4) countries whose wages are the result of collective bargaining will eventually be driven into the ground economically.
I agree that everyone should have the chance to earn a decent wage. Union-supported wages may have worked in the old semi-isolationist economy of the past, but it's been proven time and again, that in today's economy it's not the answer -- especially as long as the playing field is not level, such as in the case of China and other governments who manipulate their currency values etc., and who have little to no environmental protection laws.
The problem is that our competitors will gladly work for pennies to the dollar, and will gladly pour toxic waste into the air and into the ground to lower their costs just so they can get the business. Our old way of thinking simply can't compete with that mentality.
The only answer is either:
1) pass protectionist measures in an effort to somewhat level the playing field; or,
2) figure out a new way of thinking. |
|
|
|
Edward Meisse
From:
Santa Rosa, California, USA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2006 9:54 am
|
|
| a soap box in the smiley section. [This message was edited by Edward Meisse on 28 December 2006 at 12:00 AM.] |
|
|
|
Thom Beeman
From:
California, USA, R.I.P.
|
Posted 27 Dec 2006 10:27 am
|
|
Edward, Europe after WWll, was rebuilt with American money. That they never repaid and which we eventually wrote off. Tom, I agree, I'm not trying to bash unions, they were needed in a time when the people were really getting screwed. My dad, was a union organizer for the United Mine Workers back in the 20's and 30's. As he got older in the 70's he said they got away from there real purpose.
Before I forget-- HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone. |
|
|
|
Tom Olson
From:
Spokane, WA
|
Posted 27 Dec 2006 11:09 am
|
|
China may be changing incrementally, but it doesn't matter. The fact remains that all I've said about them above is still true. At the rate they're changing, maybe in a couple of hundred years they will have fully turned around. But, what good will that do?
| Quote: |
| We need a renewed commitment to the New Deal principles that made us the greatest country the world had ever seen between 1932 and 1980. |
Edward, I'm interested in what you mean. Can you be more specific?
By the way, I disagree with your assessment that European countries are the richest in the world. Yes, maybe Norway and some others are doing well (from a trickle down affect), but that's strictly because exploitation of their oil reserves. If you look at all of the richest countries in the world, you will find that they are rich only because of their oil. Take away their oil and they are far from the richest.
We have oil reserves too, but we can't drill them because we are prevented from doing so by our own environmental protection laws. Like I say, we need a new way of thinking.[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 27 December 2006 at 11:16 AM.] |
|
|
|
Steinar Gregertsen
From:
Arendal, Norway, R.I.P.
|
Posted 27 Dec 2006 11:31 am
|
|
| Quote: |
| Take away their oil and they are far from the richest. |
Take the oil away from Norway and we'd collapse totally. We've neglected all our traditional industries plus agriculture and fishing, ever since we got 'high' from discovering oil almost 35 years ago...
But that has nothing to do with WalMart, so I'll just wish you all a Happy New Year instead.
Steinar
------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights
[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 27 December 2006 at 11:32 AM.] |
|
|
|
