Fast Company senior writer Charles Fishman's new book The Wal-Mart Effect -- which FC recently excerpted -- could very well be the most important book about the most important company in the world.
Wal-Mart sells salmon fillets at $4.84 a pound nationwide at its Supercenter fish counters. How can it sell what was once a luxury item at $2 or $3 less than other grocers already low price? Would we purchase and grill up that salmon so happily if we could watch a video of how it was raised and handled before we bought it?
Do consumer product makers really close U.S. factories and open Chinese ones to reduce prices, because of demands from Wal-Mart -- or is that a kind of economic urban legend?
What's the typical workday like, not at a Wal-Mart store, but for the 10,000 people who work at Wal-Mart's headquarters in Bentonville, Arkansas, a place surrounded by a wall of silence?
Wal-Mart isn't just the largest store in America, or the largest store in the world, or the largest employer in the world. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world -- and one of the most powerful. It is also one of the most secretive.
In the book, Fishman cracks open Wal-Mart in a way no journalist or insider ever has before, and answers a pair of related questions: What is Wal-Mart doing for America? What is Wal-Mart doing to America?
Wal-Mart is now so large, it has created its own business ecosystem, where Wal-Mart alone sets the tempo, the rules, the economic climate. That ecosystem, Fishman explains, literally allows Wal-Mart to stand outside the very market forces which we rely on to modulate and regulate all companies. Wal-Mart is so dominant, it can reshape even the rules of market capitalism.
Without ever resorting to "unnamed sources," The Wal-Mart Effect uses the stories of real Wal-Mart suppliers, real Wal-Mart executives, and real Wal-Mart shoppers to explain how Wal-Mart delivers "every day low prices." The book shows in fascinating detail what the impact of that unrelenting drive for cheapness has been across the U.S. economy and the around the world, as the Wal-Mart ecosystem gets extended.
In the end, The Wal-Mart Effect marshalls its reporting to make two vitally important points that cut to the heart of business and society:
See if you agree.
Related Stories: | Topics:Work/Life, book discussions, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Nature and the Environment, United States, Wildlife, Charles Fishman |
Email
Digg
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Buzz Up!
LinkedIn
Recent Comments | 45 Total
January 19, 2006 at 3:20pm by Alessandro Da Corta'
Wal Mart is just the result of a world where price and efficiency is the main religion, but it creates value for the consumer and therefore it is good for the market and the people. The company is public and respects the rules of the game, like any other institution.
It would be interesting to see if the performance would change dramatically if the system opens up.
Alessandro Da Corta’ Author of Vincere la sfida del Retail Management, Franco Angeli, Milan, March 2006.
January 19, 2006 at 8:34pm by Jim Seybert (on FollsBox)
My biggest beef with Wal-Mart is the way it allows Western shoppers to save money at the expense of others. I rang a Salvation Army bell outside a Wal-Mart this past Christmas season and a significant number of customers had no apparent need to buy things at such a discount. They obviously had money, evidenced by the cars they drove and clothes they wore, so their desire to shop at Wal-Mart was driven more by greed than need.
When this happens it merely serves to widen the gap between those who "have" and those who "have not." Allowed to play out, that scenario can only spell trouble in the future.
January 19, 2006 at 10:44pm by smoothie
As a former retailer I know quite well Wal Mart's strength. When they moved across the street from me my low end business disappeared. Let me digress. Prior to Walmart moving in I was selling 75-100 $99.95 AM/FM stereo cassettes installed in your car per month. This business paid my overhead and I was doing quite well. When WalMart moved in my sales fell from 75 per month to less than 6. It destroyed my business. With the advantage of a 10-12 year look back I can see that even though it wasn't good for me, it was good for the consumers(my customers). They got a little better deal from Wal Mart, and even though I had to close the doors, our economic system spoke loud and clear. Wal Mart had the better deal. We have the best economic system in the world, the one that customer votes with his pocketbook, forget whether or not the customer is conservative or liberal, what he cares about is himself, not me or you or Wal Mart or anyone else. It is my opinion that in the long run Wal Mart will become bloated like Sears and a faster gun will displace them as the next giant in our ever changing economic system. Cheers to Wal Mart for their bringing the best price to their customers.
January 20, 2006 at 6:52am by DigitalPoleVault
Businesses cannot compete with low prices. You have to offer something better than Walmart to survive.
January 20, 2006 at 7:05am by tom
wal mart cuts cost by forcing production of lower quality products. Tools get built with plastic parts instead of the metal parts used in the slightly higher priced same brand, same tool sold by the small dealer down the street. Don't for a minute think they are giveing equal value for equal pricing. Their service, and their ability to provide the service is weak at best. The jobs they displace are not recreated in kind or value. Their business model is set to stomp the community rather that build it up.
In general the big box effect is hurting our long term outlook.
I will give into the fact that they,... well, they don't so forget it.
January 20, 2006 at 8:09am by Spencer Hill
Wal-mart is good for the consumer. its good for a local economies too, if you sell a product or service that compliments thiers.
You can compete with Wal-mart if you don't compete on price but with service, have a niche and carry higher quality products.
In less than 50 years Walmart has gone from a startup to where it is. Someone new will eventually come along and displace them.
January 20, 2006 at 8:20am by BGarrett
I question the ingenuousness of the comments by "smoothie". The key problem is that over the past 20 years Wal-Mart has convinced consumers in America that low price is synonymous with best value, and this is simply not the case. Going by the Wal-Mart focus exclusively on price, the unspoken philosophy is that the objective of life is to purchase the maximum quantity of goods possible. It is my sincere hope that most if not all Americans realize that this is NOT the path to maximum happiness and fulfillment. Efficiency is good and admirable, but it cannot come at the expense of ethics, decency and good. In time, mainstream Americans will come to realize this and the power of Wal-Mart will be diminished.
January 20, 2006 at 9:27am by TF
They obviously had money, evidenced by the cars they drove and clothes they wore, so their desire to shop at Wal-Mart was driven more by greed than need.
Possibly they have money because they don't spend more than they need to for commodity products.
January 20, 2006 at 10:00am by Mike
The comment about the salmon is the typical red herring that Wal-Mart bashers inject into this donnybrook of claims and counterclaims.
Those "farm-raised" salmon go through the same process, whether they're sold at Wal-Mart or any of the chain supermarkets. (To be fair, I've heard frequent criticisms about fish that are "farm-raised" instead of caught wild -- but that has nothing to do with Wal-Mart, any more than all the other places (and there are many) that sell the same fish, but charge more.)
To accuse Wal-Mart of being evil because their price is lower typifies the bias and unfairness of those who object to their way of doing business.
If you want to make a case (for or against Wal-Mart), stick to objective facts -- not emotional appeals or distorted statements that come from biased sources.
January 20, 2006 at 10:47am by Dolor Ipsum
Wal-Mart is neither a disease nor is it evil. Wal-Mart is a successful business that thrives because it fills the needs of consumers. The problems blamed on Wal-Mart are due to the irresponsible buying habits of the American consumer. Consumers do not think about the consequences of where and what they buy. I don’t think that people ever think about what has to happen so that they can buy a widget for $1 at Wal-Mart, a widget that costs $5 everywhere else. Only when the American consumer buys responsibly will the problems erroneously associated with Wal-Mart be addressed.
January 20, 2006 at 11:01am by Al
Wal-Mart, like all companies, is concerned about one thing and one thing only: profit! The short term maximization of profit specifically.
They provide nothing good to the public at large. If we are concerned about democracy and our freedoms, then we must tear down tyranny's like Wal-Mart.
Only in a fascist nation could companies like this thrive.
January 20, 2006 at 11:22am by Stan
A company should be focused on only one thing... delivering maximum value to its equity holders.
Wal-Mart has that focus.
Scratch an anti-WalMart ranter and you'll find an anti-private property, central planning clueless idealist everytime. Guess what, Communism failed... because there wasn't any money in it!
January 20, 2006 at 1:43pm by The Borg
""Only in a fascist nation could companies like this thrive""
Actually WalMart thrives because we are in fact a capitalist nation. Fascism would not allow WalMart to do well....fascism is what we lean towards when we seek to unnaturally restrict the growth or success of an entity such as WalMart.
January 20, 2006 at 1:53pm by Karl Marx
Wow Stan, did you learn that in fourth grade? Yes the USSR, a horrible, oppressive country, failed. Don't confuse that with socialism. It had nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is about democracy, bottom up control, and distribution of wealth. Instead of a few aristocrats owning everything and controlling the government as is the case in the US (or was in the USSR). Instead of exploiting workers and raping the natural resources from the planet, pushing our species to the brink of extinction with global warming and war, as our capitalist system has. Open your eyes and you'll see capitalism is one of the greatest failures in human history.
January 20, 2006 at 2:09pm by Mike
"Open your eyes and you'll see capitalism is one of the greatest failures in human history."
I sure enjoy living in this "failure" in human history. Find me a time in history where people: lived longer, had less stressful lives, ability to experience the world, or pursue intellectual pursuits than now.
There have been very few places and times in human history where survival was not job 1.
January 20, 2006 at 2:14pm by JV
Lots of complainers about what Wal Mart is doing wrong in America, but no better ideas on how to keep costs low and maintain consumer satisfaction. The reality is that we get what we pay for, so why is it that we tend to expect more than what we pay for?
January 20, 2006 at 2:16pm by aharris
As with all posts, someone says something that reveals their devisive perpsective. And the extremes of both sides can't resist deriding the other. So, I'm going to throw a bone for the wal-mart supporters but I really don't consider myself a supporter. I'm more of a devil's advocate. I shop at wal-mart because I don't want to pay too much on stuff I really don't want to think about its actual quality. Why should I waste my time measuring the possible social ramifications of every stinking purchase I make? So I can then go to some other store and spend more of my money and my time. Then what? That store wisens up and externalizes the cost of the transaction onto some other impoverished community and it's workers domestic or foreign. Folks it's not Wal-Mart, it's capitalism.
How's that for a bone?
January 20, 2006 at 2:33pm by TBone
This is a vicious cycle, a race to the bottom, driven by greed. Every dollar spent on a foreign made product previously made by a US manufacturer strengthens the maker's economy and weakens the US. It's a fact.
Wal-Mart isn't evil, it's ambivalent and ultimately nationless. Wherever it can make a buck, it goes. What's left behind is environmental and economic destruction, because the ONLY way to sustain the profitability it generates for its shareholders is through cost reduction, which squeezes the manufacturer to go lower and lower, which invites competitively priced labor, lowered environmental impact concerns, and a locust mentality.
Good is never cheap, and cheap is never good. Both have consequences unforeseen.
January 20, 2006 at 2:58pm by Patrick
I'd have to say that most people commenting appear to have not read the book this article was about. I haven't either, I'm just wonder if anyone has, (because it doesn't sound like it).
I think that while any business does well to provided affordable products to it's consumers, it should always do so within the bounds of morality. Case in point:Smoothi lost his business, which afforded him a level of disposable income. Now smoothi has to get employed somewhere else, or reopen a new business, neither of which will likely provide the same amount of disposable income. That means he's buying less "nice things", effectively lowering his quality of living. Likewise, this same reduction in spending affects the other community members that relied on his disposable income to generate their own, (maybe a local pub, or movie store, whatever). Now, Smoothi's loss is directly impacting those around him. Ignoring, for a moment the likelyhood that those people are probably trying to compete with Wal-Mart as well, we can see how this one loss impacts the standard of living for the entire community.
Now, start adding the employees that Smoothi had, (some of which will be unable to get employment in a same-pay position). It begins to cascade. And I haven't discussed the mega-corp's distribution network, suppliers, etc. all of whom are also either being affected or are affected in the process.
The question here is not if Wal-mart is good or bad. It simply is what it is. What should be done is control it's impact on the comunities and people it affects in a negative way. Anyone who believes that the suffering of a few is worth the rest of us saving 63¢ on milk, mark your words. One day that may be you.
January 20, 2006 at 5:35pm by Jennifer
Wal Mart is a bad thing! I live on a island in Alaska and Wal Mart decided to have a business open up here. Mind you that in this small town we basically live off of the tourism that is brought here by the cruise ships and Alaska Marine Highway. When it came here they knocked out pretty much all of the local shops because of their prices and reduced our town to nothing. Everyone is trying to survive here now but since Wal Mart came in most of the town would like to see them LEAVE while running for their lives. Especially since we have the right to bear arms in Alaska!!!!
January 20, 2006 at 6:09pm by Ralph Powell
A poster wrote:
"Scratch an anti-WalMart ranter and you'll find an anti-private property, central planning clueless idealist everytime. Guess what, Communism failed... because there wasn't any money in it!"
Well, you can scratch me until I bleed. If I bleed, it will be red, white, and blue. Let me be clear. I HATE WAL MART! Why?, First, I hate to shop there. Their service is something south of pathetic. I also hate the idea that we as a society are being lulled to sleep into thinking that we should accept this mediocrity. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Wal Mart is evil, or even wrong in doing what they do, I just think that it is sad that we as consumers have come to expect so little. I know that I expect, and get more, when I shop at other places. Yes, Wal Mart's Prices are lower. It's also cheaper to cut my own grass. I don't. Why? Because I like to spend my time creating revenues for my business and with my kids. Not riding around on, or pushing a lawnmower. I hope more people will realize over time that they deserve more for themselves and their family than to be herded like cattle through a maze of nonsense at the big blue store for the masses. And, by the way, their quality, across the board, is absolutely inferior to their competitors. You get what you pay for.
January 20, 2006 at 10:40pm by abc
worked at wal-mart for 28vrs., most of what was said is junk, both at the store level and the corporate level
January 21, 2006 at 2:34am by skagarawal
GM was the no 1 company - a few years ago....
Dutch East India Company was the no 1 company in 1699 to 17xx ....
Companies grow, when they provide some thing that the people want. They do it in a manner that suits the social thinking, and is acceptable as a proper thing.
What is wrong if Wal Mart - is offering the same. They do not point guns on people to buy, they do not force them selves on communities and tell them that ONLY US is best... they are offering a retail position, that is within the law, open and a choice for one person to buy.
Future - I am sure there will be some thing, what I cannot predict - but some thing that will displace Wal mart.. GM is dying, and others did as well.
We have to appreciate the team of people who build such a vast network, such a global logistic logics and still offer lower cost to the public...
I like Wal mart for sure...
January 21, 2006 at 9:31am by Howard Martin
Walmart is hated and hammered on a daily basis for one reason only. It is successful. Apparently a lot of people want Walmart to raise prices, become no-competitive and go out of business. Who would that benifit? Nobody except the poorly run, inefficient businesses who can't survive unless everyone else is just as incompetent as they are. People are hipocrites, they shop at Walmart and then write letters to the editor complaining about the 400lb gorilla.
January 24, 2006 at 9:50am by Robert Campbell
Had my company decided to accept a contract with Sams Club (WalMarts membership club) we would be bankrupt. Not only were they intentionally deceptive regarding the opportunity they were presenting - they had flat out lied about why the previous vendor had abruptly ceased to do business with them mid contract dispite threats of litigation from Sams (which of course never arose). They are the picture of greed and all that is wrong with business in America.
January 24, 2006 at 10:54am by Jim
When are people gonna wake up? I will GLADLY pay 10%, 20%, 50% more for something made in the USA. Gladly, anyday. People are so greedy, it's sick. Just as a previous post said, they drive in, in a $40,000.00 vehicle to save 2 bucks on a cheap pair of pants, and then go to Starbucks and spend $4.00 on a friggin latte!!!!
This country is sending itself overseas in a cardboard box. And it seems that all are concerned re: unemployment...Wake up, you stupid people, you're cutting your own throat....
January 24, 2006 at 12:18pm by Mike
I've read all the comments thus far and still maintain the "Let's wait and see" philosophy about what will happen to Walmart and the American economy in the next 50 years.
My policy is to buy as much as I can in the community where I live. Walmart is across the highway in another city. However, I like Walmart because it is so easy to return stuff if I'm not satisfied. No questions asked.
Nobody has touched on this point yet, and I'd like to hear some conversation on it. I've known folks who've bought stuff and used it for a while and returned it, almost like they were checking out a book at the library. As for me, I wouldn't do that, but I have returned cheap things like tools only to exchange them for more expensive versions of the same tool.
So how can Walmart afford to take all those returns without questions and often without receipts? Do they resell them somewhere? Is there a way for manufacturers to benefit or is it all a loss to them? Or does Walmart lose?
By the way, my retired uncle works there in Hardware & Paint and says he's really impressed with how hard Walmart works at reducing employee turnover. He was in facilities management for 40 years.
One more thing, if it wasn't for cheap Salmon, I would never get to eat any! And I love it!
January 24, 2006 at 5:10pm by eware
I've shopped at Walmart; I've shopped at K-Mart; I've shopped at Meijers (central U.S.); I've shopped at Target. It's all same: the service stinks, most of the stuff is made in China, and I like the prices. The only real difference in the four is Walmart is just a lot bigger and more successful. It may not be Neiman-Marcus quality but it "ain't" Neiman-Marcus price either. Oh, and check out where N-M stuff is made! I don't shop at N-M but I'll bet most their soft goods comes from China, too!
January 24, 2006 at 8:35pm by The future
The only way to stop wal-mart, is with a population that isn't ignorant. Many big businesses trample over unfortunate people, to bring cheaper prices to the United States. I have never witnessed wal-mart ever taking their earnings, and helping the poor people who make the products they sell. Even worst, if you work at wal-mart, you simply can not raise a family working full time. People will eventually realize that wal-mart is not a part of our culture that we are proud of. Do not be ignorant of bad practices.
January 25, 2006 at 12:41am by Mike
If you take an honest look at a cross-section of the merchandise sold at Wal-Mart, you'll discover that they are are made in -- are you ready for this? -- the USA! Sure, many items are made in China, Latin America and third world countries, but so are the goods at Sears, Macy's, Home Depot and Circuit City.
Another point: when Katrina struck the Gulf, Wal-Mart mobilized to deliver an incredible shipment of emergency supplies (150 tractor-trailer loads) -- and they did it so quickly that they won kudos from even some of their enemies! They also immediately started tracking the whereabouts of all their affected employees and told them that they'd have an immediate job opportunity at any Wal-Mart store, anywhere, so they could get back on their feet.
Did any of the other big chain stores make similar offers to their affected employees? I don't think so.
Did any other company mobilize the way Wal-Mart did? I don't think so.
And what did the unions (who are financing the anti Wal-Mart movement) do? Did they mobilize their workers to return to N/O? No, they complained that not enough union workers were being hired, at union wages, to clean up New Orleans.
No one is perfect, and that includes Wal-Mart. But what might have initially had some validity, has instead morphed into a display of distortion,arrogance and mean-spiritedness. What a disgrace!
January 25, 2006 at 9:44am by Roger Emmott
Some views from the UK where Wal-Mart owns the Asda group (formerly a UK public listed company, selling food and non-food items).
Award-wining food journalist Joanna Blythman comments in her book "Shopped: The Shocking Power of British Supermarkets" published May 2004 : "I learned that UK supermarkets now jump to the tune of our second largest chain, Asda. Since 1999 when it was taken over by the biggest retailer in the world, the U.S. chain Wal-Mart, Asda’s strategy of ‘Every Day Low Pricing’, has triggered a supermarket price war in which chains without buying muscle are disadvantaged. In order to keep up with Asda, our leading chains in the UK must be ever more ruthless in the way they operate or else risk losing their place at the supermarket superpowers, top table".
Yes, but...the UK public has a choice, massive choice, and Tesco, Sainsburys and many other stores survive and prosper. In the UK the threat is often seen as coming from focused, low-cost retailers such as Lidl and Aldi (from traditionally high-cost Germany), where massive buying power on a very focused product range results in low prices, full stores and happy customers. A different, but very effective, strategy.
January 25, 2006 at 10:27am by Jeff
I grew up in a small town in western PA. When the Super WalMart opened there, people were thrilled. The prices, selection, and hours were all much better than what they were used to. This Walmart was a big improvement in their standard of living. Every $ saved could be used for a vacation or a new car or .... I don't fault these people for shopping at Walmart. They have few options and their standard of living has been really squeezed the last 20 years. I really fear for the next 20 years, though as Walmart buys nothing local.
January 25, 2006 at 11:59pm by Therese
OK Mike, let's look at some facts:
1. 25% of the workers WalMart employs make wages so small they can't afford to pay for their own insurance coverage "provided" by the company. Employees are told to go apply for aid offered by the federal government. That insurance coverage is provided by you, me and all the other taxpayers across the US. That has added up to nearly $1Billion dollars. That's right, $1Billion of taxpayers money goes toward paying medical coverage for WalMart employees!! Fact: federal tax money enables WalMart to make higher profits and if you shop there you are supporting it.
2. Nearly $500Million dollars in abandoned WalMart real estate is being carried by state and local taxpayers across the US. Yet again, your tax dollars go toward carrying costs that WalMart doesn't have to so they can make more money and pay their shareholders.
Yes, you are right, let's look at the facts and the unbiased facts say that WalMart is using your tax dollars to make money and ultimately hide illegal business practices. Just so you can save what you think is 5 cents off a Chinese made T Shirt.
Bigger and cheaper at your expense.
January 26, 2006 at 3:43am by eric ekblad
I walked into one of their stores about five years ago. One look, and I was truly looking at "suffering humanity". TONS of junk, plastic, a few name brand items, and more junk with literally thousands of mindless individuals wandering around trying to figure out which piece of junk they should buy next. My clothes, shoes, food, virtually everything I buy is of higher, MUCH HIGHER quality than your going to find at some oversized five and ten cent store like wal mart. I would like to see a federal investigation into wal mart and it's underhanded antics. To me, wal mart is as slimey and LOW CLASS as some five car used car lot. I hope that the feds do something about the economic harm this company does to this United States. WAL MART YOU ROT IN HELL!!!
January 26, 2006 at 4:03am by eric ekblad
Wal Mart is nothing but a giant five and ten cent store. I buy at more expensive stores, because they stand behind their products, have less fat slob women at the cash register, the stores are not as crowded with "suffering humanity", junk, and quite often the dregs of society shopping there. Wal Mart, I hope you are further investigated, and the feds shut you down as a detrement to America's financial health!!!
January 26, 2006 at 4:17am by Mike
Thanks, Therese.
Let's see...
- These figures (esp. the $1 billion figure) were reported in Rep. Miller's widely circulated "factfinding" report on Wal-Mart. Except that many of his figures were provided by unions, union-funded advocacy groups and newspaper articles that quoted them. I have yet to see any government study (using its own unbiased, objective information channels) showing that the numbers are any different for other retail firms... nor does it address workers in companies like, say, McDonalds. Where is all the concern for those people, and why the focus on Wal-Mart?
- You'll also find that many of those people who may not earn enough for Wal-Mart benefits are either (a) retirees with other coverage, (b) covered by spouses' benefits, or (c) students covered by their parents' benefits.
- Taxpayers pay HUNDREDS of billions of dollars for medical coverage for the un- (and under-)insured. That's not exactly a Wal-Mart issue -- it's an indictment of the entire U.S. healthcare system. Which, as I said earlier, the unions haven't deemed as important a cause as simply "defeating" (read: unionizing) Wal-Mart.
- Only a tiny fraction of that vacant (or abandoned) retail real estate comes from Wal-Mart. I live in the Northeast, which is littered with abandoned retail sites -- only a minuscule portion of which is Wal-Mart. And the local authorities either collect the carrying costs (taxes) or they can seize the property and sell it for other stores or purposes. Which is what many places have done with ANY store's abandoned property for decades. (Oh, and if the unions were that concerned, they'd help -- after all, finding new tenants or uses invariably leads to new jobs.)
One other thing: none of the practices you cited are illegal.
While we're at it, let's stop this "it's all Chinese crap" diatribe. When it comes to selling imported goods, there's no difference at all between Wal-Mart and Target, Sears, Macy's, Home Depot, and virtually every other major retailer in America. What major retailer doesn't sell goods imported from China? Or Latin America? Or eastern Europe? Even the so-called American brands (like GE) produce most of their goods overseas. And if you ask them why, they'll tell you it's not because of Wal-Mart.
Face it: If the unions didn't spend tens (or hundreds) of millions of dollars on campaigns like this, their dues would decrease dramatically and perhaps help make their workers more competitive. And if it weren't for the unions' funding, the Wal-Mart-bashing organizations wouldn't even exist.
Look, Therese, we'll have to agree to disagree on this issue. But let me propose something constructive: walk with your feet (a freedom we enjoy in America). If Wal-Mart is so evil, don't shop there. But make sure that wherever you do shop doesn't commit the same "sins" you attribute to Wal-Mart.
January 26, 2006 at 3:27pm by shoeless joe
1. Wal-Mart has a bigger affect on small towns than it does on cities or suburbs. The downtown cores are the hub of local community activity in small towns. When Wal-Mart displaces the independant shops, the community becomes much less dynamic. Meaningful interaction between neighbors is not the same inside a big box store as it is in the streets and shops of small town America.
2. Giving work to people in China is not a bad thing (they have families that need to survive too). But economic transition should be managed so American families dont suffer. Ecomonies are supposed to serve the people, not the other way around.
3. If more people would buy second-hand things we could cut down on the mountains of trash we create daily, and there would be less demand for Wal-Mart. Heck, go to craigslist, people are giving good things away for free.
March 4, 2006 at 2:29pm by uranus
Here's a couple things to consider. 1) I reside just south of the "Apple Harvest Capitol of North America" where right up the road from me are 48,000 acres of apple tree orchards. You have the major factories there too, Lucky Leaf, Motts, Muscleman's. etc. I happen to like apple juice as one of, if not my favorite drink. I drive 8 miles south to my local Wally World to buy apple juice. They sell a brand called "SKYLAND" for $1.50 per bottle. The label has a big American flag printed on the front but if you look closely under the flag it states "American Owned Company". On the actual bottle it self it has stamped in purple ink "Product Of China". Do I need to elaborate further here? 2)Ever leave Wal-Mart and have the alarm go off as you pass through their security proximity alert for no valid reason? Then the Dinosaur / Gimp patrol walks up to you after you are instructed to "HALT" by the purposely distorted recording that has subliminal messages in the background like "YOU ARE A THIEF!",..."GO TO PRISON LOSER!"...."WAL-MART IS GOD",..."GOD SHALL BEHEAD YOU",... or what ever they have in there. Makes you think doesn't it? I often wonder how much effort their security team at corporate put in to creating that recorded message,...the same message played at all 20 zillion of their stores... I hear they are introducing face recognition technology for their loss prevention program nationwide. The point is you are PRESUMED A SHOPLIFTER UNTIL YOU PROVE OTHERWISE by allowing the dinosaur to search your cart and examine the receipt to their satisfaction. What if your walking out the store on a busy Saturday,...the alarm sounds off with it's purposely distorted (designed to intimidate) voice,...you are in the process of being "detained" by the Wal-Mart Gestapo,...and 1/2 of your church quire (you are a member of) walks in and sees you there? How does that make you feel???? That actually happened to a friend of mine, he sued and collected $5000 from Wally! Folks, the receipt is your property as soon as you receive it and you can eat it for lunch if you so desire, let alone be compelled to take it out of your wallet and show it to Gestapo!!! Just keep on walking, and if they are dumb enough to stop you, (or impede your forward motion which is a more legal term for false arrest / detainment in most jurisdictions), SUE THEM AND MAKE EM PAY!!! Maybe after 200,0000 $5000 settlements they will finally get the message that they got to play by society's rules, not their own and stop treating honest folks like potential criminals!
April 28, 2006 at 4:21pm by Mimmo Montalenti
THE LEAST WE SHOULD EXPECT FROM THE ABOVE FOLKS, IS THAT THEY ACTUALLY READ THE BOOK.
NOT AT ALL.
THEY DID NO SUCH THING.
TO THE CONTRARY, MOST OF THEM SHOW THE FAMILIAR SYMPTOMS OF IDEOLOGICAL ROT: THEIR MINDS ARE CLOSED IN ADVANCE TO ANY FACTS THAT MIGHT DISTURB OR QUESTION THEIR "FAITH SYSTEM".
MY WISH TO THEM:
I HOPE IN THE END YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.
IT SURE LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE WELL ON YOUR WAY.
September 11, 2006 at 5:06pm by James Leone
I've read the book and have come to the conclusion that the Government has been irresponsible by not introducing some kind of anti-trust legislation.
So if you are a champion of capitalizm, its time to ask the govenment for antitrust legislation.
Walmart's suppliers are in a catch 22; with their choices limited to:
1. Selling their products at below profit
2. Reducing the quality of their products
3. Employ people to manufacture their products for Wal-Mart at poverty level wages - resulting in jobs lost to those overseas.
Walmart has the size, intent and ability as well as a proven history of undermining "perfect competition" a market condition necessary for capitalizim's "Invisible Hand" to cause the following as described in Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations":
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest."
As explained here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_competition
Without perfect competition:
"In contrast to a monopoly or oligopoly, it is impossible for a firm in perfect competition to earn abnormal profit in the long run, which is to say that a firm cannot make any more money than is necessary to cover its costs. If a firm is earning abnormal profit in the short term, this will act as a trigger for other firms to enter the market. They will compete with the first firm, driving the market price down until all firms are earning normal profit. On the other hand, if firms are making a loss, then some firms will leave the industry, reduce the supply and increase the price. Therefore, all firms can only make normal profit in the long run.
It is important to note that perfect competition is a sufficient condition for allocative and productive efficiency, but it is not a necessary condition. Laboratory experiments in which participants have significant price setting power and little to no information about their counterparts consistently produce efficient results [citation needed] given the proper trading institutions."
The direct evidence for this can be seen in the comments in this thread, academic studies, as well as this article printed in Social Science Quarterly:
A study published today in the latest issue of Social Science Quarterly examines the effect of Wal-Mart stores on local poverty rates. The study found that nationwide an estimated 20,000 families have fallen below the official poverty line as a result of Wal-Mart’s expansion. During the last decade, dependence on the food stamp program nationwide increased by 8 percent while in counties with Wal-Mart stores, the increase was almost twice as large at 15.3 percent.
The study, authored by Stephan Goetz, professor of Agricultural and Regional Economics at Penn State University, found that local infrastructure subsidies given to Wal-Mart “may not be warranted” and that Wal-Mart stores have displaced the “local class of entrepreneurs” and “destroyed local leadership capacity.”
Key findings from the report are excerpted below:
“After carefully and comprehensively accounting for other local determinants of changes in poverty, we find that the presence of Wal-Mart was unequivocally associated with smaller reductions in family-poverty rates in U.S. counties during the 1990s relative to places that had no stores…
“Thus, our results provide clear evidence that the spread of Wal-Mart stores during the 1990s was associated with higher usage of food stamps per capita…
“The public costs that the chain imposes by raising the poverty rate suggest that public infrastructure subsidies may not be warranted or, as a minimum, that these two types of costs need to be added together to assess the overall cost of the chain to the community…
“In conclusion, the costs to communities in terms of labor displacement and higher poverty need to be weighed against the benefits of lower prices and greater shopping convenience. Similarly, once local businesses have been driven out, the possibility of monopolies or oligopolies emerging in retailing (both on the input and output side) needs to be considered carefully by public policymakers.”
James Leone