43 replies to this topic

[Gummug]

ninjadude, on 04 July 2012 - 08:06 PM, said:

Is is somewhat ironic. The change occurred when these corporate giants decided that it was more cost effective to move jobs overseas, to cut/modify/reduce pension plans and benefits, the treat workers like garbage, to create garbage products, pollute the environment and purchase influence in governments.

I pretty much agree with you except, isn't that partly the government's fault for putting the second highest tax in the world on corporations? I believe the only country that taxes corporations more is Japan.

[Paracelse]

Gummug, on 04 July 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

I pretty much agree with you except, isn't that partly the government's fault for putting the second highest tax in the world on corporations? I believe the only country that taxes corporations more is Japan.

You meqn higher tax before or after all the loopholes which allows them to get away with paying nearly zilch zero deadly squat?

[lliqerty]

jugoso, on 04 July 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

And If you define success based on how much $$ the Waltons make every year, then they are successful. Nobody is saying they don´t have the right to do what they do.  What the article looked at was how this type of big-box industry has changed the fabric of American society and some of the ways it has hurt small business. Here in Mexico for example 20¨% of all WALMart stores are located here . How did they do this so quickly??.....through bribes and kick-backs. Hardly playing by the rules.
And I really don´t understand your last two questions but here are some other facts about WalMart

The Walmart Economy by the Numbers

Walmart is powerful…

1
Walmart’s rank (PDF) as employer of retail workers and rank in size of private U.S. employers
$408.2 billion
Walmart’s 2010 revenue as the number one Fortune 100 company

But America is paying the price…

196,000
Number of U.S. jobs lost from 2001-2006 as a result of Walmart’s imports from China
11%
Conservative estimate of percentage of Walmart’s share of U.S. Trade Deficit with China
$8.8 million
Cost to Massachusetts (PDF) of Walmart associates using publicly subsidized health care in 2009
$1 billion
Cost to nation if public safety net use by Walmart associates in Massachusetts is adjusted nationwide¹

And Walmart associates are paying the price…

$15,500
Average annual salary of a Walmart sales associate (based on an IBIS World figure)
$8.81
Average hourly wage of a Walmart sales associate (based on an IBIS World figure)
46¢
Additional cost per shopping trip for a Walmart customer if the company offered a minimum wage of $12 an hour (PDF)
http://makingchangea....org/factsheet/

Btw, I am not saying that Walmart is good. Everybody who does not like it has the right to go somewhere else.I believe in the freedom of choice.

I also believe government has the duty to regulate business such that it does not harm society, in all those respects that were mentioned, employment, environment, competition etc. I do not like Walmart when it removes or reduces the freedom of choice.

But as long as they play by the rules that were set, if they are succesful, I have no problem with that, infact I respect them for that. If and when they do not play by the rules they should suffer the consequences of that also. Now, if they can avoid the consequences by bribing officials then whose fault is that? It is the government. Say, a prisoner escapes, he needs to be aught and punished but whose fault is it that he escaped? It is the guard's fault.

Again, when Walmart cannot be made to suffer the consequences because the government is corrupt and being bribed, then Walmart is a symptom, not the problem.

The numbers you are quoting about Walmart now only prove one thing, they are successful. The numbers about the society prove that the Middle Class is suffering. But you need to place the blame where it belongs. The Government decides what laws to have. The Government decides which laws to enforce. And The Government decides which campaign donors to let get away with murder.

The suffering of the Middle Class is to be blamed squarely on the Governments.

[jugoso]

lliqerty, on 05 July 2012 - 03:55 AM, said:

Btw, I am not saying that Walmart is good. Everybody who does not like it has the right to go somewhere else.I believe in the freedom of choice.

I also believe government has the duty to regulate business such that it does not harm society, in all those respects that were mentioned, employment, environment, competition etc. I do not like Walmart when it removes or reduces the freedom of choice.

But as long as they play by the rules that were set, if they are succesful, I have no problem with that, infact I respect them for that. If and when they do not play by the rules they should suffer the consequences of that also. Now, if they can avoid the consequences by bribing officials then whose fault is that? It is the government. Say, a prisoner escapes, he needs to be aught and punished but whose fault is it that he escaped? It is the guard's fault.

Again, when Walmart cannot be made to suffer the consequences because the government is corrupt and being bribed, then Walmart is a symptom, not the problem.

The numbers you are quoting about Walmart now only prove one thing, they are successful. The numbers about the society prove that the Middle Class is suffering. But you need to place the blame where it belongs. The Government decides what laws to have. The Government decides which laws to enforce. And The Government decides which campaign donors to let get away with murder.

The suffering of the Middle Class is to be blamed squarely on the Governments.

I agree with many of your points and am not suggesting that WalMart is to blame for all of the woes of the middle class. I guess if it is a businesses job to exploit and take advantage of any and all loopholes or lack of employee protection laws they can in whatever country the are operating in to make a bigger profit then they have the right to do so. But having the right and using it are two diffrerent things. From the article it states:

This year alone, the Waltons will pocket $2.7 billion in dividends from their Walmart holdings

. So at the same time they are making these huge profits, they are passing some of their health-care costs for their employees onto the states. They are just as guilty for doing it as the government is for allowing them to do so IMHO. When individuals act in selfish and unscrupulous ways, I hold them accountable for their actions, not  the government for not passing laws that don´t allow this type of behaviour. But as you pointed out above, it is really the corporations that are dictating to the government what types of laws and policies are passed and put into place. So that leaves the majority ****-outta-luck and suffering.

   I will use an example that has made this very clear to me, I live in a city in Mexico with a population around 500,000. About 5 years ago, almost ALL of the convenience stores were of the Mom / Pop variety. Then OXXO moved into town in a big way. In the last 5 years they have opened probably 100 stores. In the beginning, their prices were the lowest of any store. Then slowly the Mom/ POP stores started to close and the prices have started to rise at a rate considerably more than inflation. It has been really sad for me to see these family owned businesses close down. I know when I shop at these stores, my money goes to the family and stays in the community to pay for education etc. Every $$ spent at an Oxxo gets sucked outta here. And they use the same tactics as WalMart. They buy in such huge quantities that they pressure their suppliers into giving them better deals and can then offer products at well below the actual cost of them. They can sell tywo liters of water and a bag of chips for less than aliter of water at a mom/pop.  Low cost seems to be what rules as most people here can´t afford to shop ethically so they slowly gain customer base in this way. Pretty soon, there will be almost no mom & pop stores left. In addition, they work deals with other large corporations (telmex, telcel, ICE electric company) so you can pay your bills there etc. Nothing illegal about it but it just ends up with one big monopoly at the end and a lot of families struggling to figure out how they are going to survive. And I find that very sad. Dollars before people= 1 fu**ed up world.

  We have all been witness to the big chains slowly suffocating smaller, family run independent stores over the last twenty years cuz they sell for less. And they are able to do so with the help of government and the ignorance on many people´s part about how their purchasing decisions will impact choices their children will get to make. Anyhoo....rattled on long enough and these are just some of my thoughts.

Edited by jugoso, 05 July 2012 - 04:45 PM.

[lliqerty]

Okay, we disagree but maybe we can arrive at some common ground. A corp exists to maximize shareholder return, not to create paradise on earth. You said, for their "unscrupulous ways, I hold them accountable". Of course. Accountable means punish illegal acts, not for unscrupulous ones.

Why not blame the government? Lets say, the people do not want "big box" stores. Okay, so they should pass an ordinance that limits the size of the store. That simple.

If, as we mentioned, the government is corrupt (which means it is clearly not doing the "right" thing) and passes laws to benefit the corp, not the people, then why do you think you can, or should be able to, expect Walmart to do the "right" thing? Walmart is designed to work for its shareholders. The government is the one that is designed, or should be designed, to work for you, the people. You, we, elect the government, apparently we elect the wrong people, right?

jugoso, IMHO, the answer is the constitution. The constitution is what tells the government how it must operate. If it is well written, provides for transparancy, accountability and balance of power, then it can be effective in protecting the people's interests.

As an example, the selection of the members of the Board of Directors can be regulated such that employees will be represented to give them the power to make decisions that affect not only themselves, their employment, but also the profitability of the company. If it is increased then great. If it decreases the profitability then capital may not be readily available to fund the operations. Without capital there will be no employment.

The point is, the government must set the rules, the corp must follow them. That is how an economy can function. Without specific, written, stable rules that everybody has to go by, you will not have a viable economy.

Edited by lliqerty, 05 July 2012 - 05:50 PM.

[Paracelse]

In moral world there shouldn't be many rules.

[lliqerty]

Paracelse, on 05 July 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

In moral world there shouldn't be many rules.

which planet?

[Mr Right Wing]

jugoso, on 04 July 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

Sam Walton opened the first Walmart store in Rogers, Arkansas, 50 years ago this month. Sprawled along a major thoroughfare outside the city's downtown, that inaugural store embodied many of the hallmarks that have since come to define the Walmart way of doing business. Walton scoured the country for the cheapest merchandise and deftly exploited a loophole in federal law to pay his mostly female workforce less than minimum wage.

That relentless focus on squeezing workers and suppliers for every advantage has paid off since July 1962. Walmart is now the second-largest corporation on the planet. It took in almost half-a-trillion dollars last year at more than 10,000 stores worldwide.

Walmart's explosive growth has gutted two key pillars of the American middle class:

Small Businesses  Small, family-owned retail businesses likewise closed in droves as Walmart grew. Between 1992 and 2007, the number of independent retailers fell by over 60,000, according to the U.S. Census.

Well-paying manufacturing jobs Between 2001 and 2007, some 40,000 U.S. factories closed, eliminating millions of jobs. While Walmart's ceaseless search for lower costs wasn't the only factor that drove production overseas, it was a major one. During these six years, Walmart's imports from China tripled in value from $9 billion to $27 billion.

Their demise triggered a cascade of losses elsewhere. As communities lost their local retailers, there was less demand for services like accounting and graphic design, less advertising revenue for local media outlets, and fewer accounts for local banks. As Walmart moved into communities, the volume of money circulating from business to business declined. More dollars flowed into Walmart's tills and out of the local economy

And the worse things get, the more alluring Walmart's siren call of low prices becomes. While the Ford Motor Co. once profited by creating a workforce that could afford to buy its cars, today Walmart profits by ensuring that Americans cannot afford to shop anywhere else. The average family of four now spends over $4,000 a year at Walmart

http://www.otherword...as_middle_class.

Manufacturing will go through a recovery over the next 30 years.

As Chinese incomes rise so will their inflation pushing the cost of their goods up. Germany, UK and the US are positioned to take the most advantage from this.

[Clyde the Glyde]

Walmart has " Convenience. "  Most people don't have the time to make multiple stops and run all over town to get everything they need.

Bacon, bullets, motor oil,  toilet paper...  Make one stop, get what I need and get  home.

[Michelle]

Walmart is the best grocery store in my area and they have great produce. The others are crap or very expensive and in the next town.

[jugoso]

lliqerty, on 05 July 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

jugoso, IMHO, the answer is the constitution. The constitution is what tells the government how it must operate. If it is well written, provides for transparancy, accountability and balance of power, then it can be effective in protecting the people's interests.

Well if the constitution is the answer then we are all really in trouble because it seems to me like it is being shredded on a daily basis. And in todays global economy, there are just too many "back-doors" to get around legislation. I´ll give another example.
I grew up in small town Ontario. Our claim to fame was that we had the only Hershey chocolate factory outside Pennsylvania. When I was younger and there were so many more trade barriers, I never really questioned why we had it. It was only until about 10 years ago that I learned what our purpose was. Due to the embargo with Cuba, The US couldn´t buy sugar from them. However, we could and so we did and would make huge slabs of chocolate that were then sent to the US and were then made into chocolate bars. That was the only purpose we served and how the corporation got around the legislation. About 5 years ago, it made more sense for them to move the whole operation to Mexico which they did and it really hurt my town. It is obvious why they did it.....lower pay, less health-care, less environmental laws for Mexican employees. In todays global marketplace, there isn´t much many individual governments can really do. I´m not saying it is illegal just that as corp continue to try and maximize their profits for a small minority, the majority get the shaft.
    I really don´t think there is any solution. It is hard to legislate ethical behaviour. It is obvious that corporations behave like psychopaths and apparently that is OK for them. Nobody can make the Walton´s only take 1.7 bil this year and pass the rest onto so many of their struggling employees. It must come from within.
The collective salvation of our civilisation requires the inner transformation of every individual from the ignorance of materialism and individualism to a collective  awareness. Stuff like that can´t be legislated.
I´ve seen what has happened over the last 10-20 years and am truly concerned where it will all end up.

[lightly]

It's not just Walmart,  though their success no doubt encouraged others,  it's chain outlets in general that are killing small town commerce.    Take any major exit off any U.S. interstate highway and you find your self in "Interstate America" with a similar mix of mega chain food outlets  , gas stations,  and lodgings.  .. Free enterprise?  Competition?  NO, not exactly.
  I remember towns where every store was owned by a person or family instead of a  megacorporation.   But then, I remember steam trains  , out houses, and horse drawn wagons too!  

[zebra99]

In Britain replace 'Walmart' with 'Tesco'....the same story applies.

[Order66]

I don't think this is a fair criticism, if you all liked the mom and pop store so much then you should have kept shopping there, but you figured you'd go to wal-mart to save money and just assumed everyone else would still go to the mom and pop store. Suddenly it's out of business and you are all shocked. Why don't you shake your fist at the other shoppers like yourself, that's where the blame belongs.

[lliqerty]

jugoso, on 05 July 2012 - 09:27 PM, said:

Well if the constitution is the answer then we are all really in trouble because it seems to me like it is being shredded on a daily basis. And in todays global economy, there are just too many "back-doors" to get around legislation. I´ll give another example.
I grew up in small town Ontario. Our claim to fame was that we had the only Hershey chocolate factory outside Pennsylvania. When I was younger and there were so many more trade barriers, I never really questioned why we had it. It was only until about 10 years ago that I learned what our purpose was. Due to the embargo with Cuba, The US couldn´t buy sugar from them. However, we could and so we did and would make huge slabs of chocolate that were then sent to the US and were then made into chocolate bars. That was the only purpose we served and how the corporation got around the legislation. About 5 years ago, it made more sense for them to move the whole operation to Mexico which they did and it really hurt my town. It is obvious why they did it.....lower pay, less health-care, less environmental laws for Mexican employees. In todays global marketplace, there isn´t much many individual governments can really do. I´m not saying it is illegal just that as corp continue to try and maximize their profits for a small minority, the majority get the shaft.
I really don´t think there is any solution. It is hard to legislate ethical behaviour. It is obvious that corporations behave like psychopaths and apparently that is OK for them. Nobody can make the Walton´s only take 1.7 bil this year and pass the rest onto so many of their struggling employees. It must come from within.
The collective salvation of our civilisation requires the inner transformation of every individual from the ignorance of materialism and individualism to a collective  awareness. Stuff like that can´t be legislated.
I´ve seen what has happened over the last 10-20 years and am truly concerned where it will all end up.

You are correct on both counts. Yes, there should be an inner transformation of every individual to a collective  awareness, and yes, we are all really in trouble.

The problem is, as you said yourself, stuff like that can´t be legislated. So how will you bring about inner transformation, and in what time span? Are you going to force people, "re-educate" them, or do like a Jehovah witness? I think it will come when people are ready for it, but that may not be in your lifetime, and will not come on command.

We are really in trouble, because a replacement of the constitution requires a revolution. I don't see that happening soon. But I maybe wrong. If the OWS slogan of 'we are the 99%' is correct then a revolution should be possible and peaceful. I actually wrote a constitution as an exercise, to make clear in my mind what would work, how to create a balance of power, how to prevent corporate lobbies from having the opportunity to corrupt officials, what would force the government to be transparant, and what can be done to prevent the government from shredding the constitution.

It is not difficult, just that it requires a revolution. But if we are the 99% and we agree to cooperate, then it is easy. I can show you.