posted on Mar, 20 2005 @ 08:24 AM
CyberKat, thank you for your response. I certainly did not mean to imply that you even had a union stance; I simply thought it a good thing to know
when I read the article.
Everyone has an agenda of one sort or another, and no one has the absolute truth about anything. One way to eliminate bias, I
believe, is to find out what kind of ax an author has to grind and then compensate for it.
For example, if I read an article that bashed a particular company and learned that it was written by a competitor, it might make me a little more
leery of the spin that the article gives.
(Except for articles that deal with Airbus Industrie, the Servants of Satan. Even if the article were written by a Boeing employee, you can agree
with all that's said there. But I digress...)
I personally have mixed feeling about Wal-Mart and big boxes iin general. The bad things they do is to eliminate a lot of competition on the retail
level, simply because they are more efficient at delivering cost-effective product thanks to the economies of scale. The good thing they do is to
actually be more efficient and the consumers pay a lower cost for their goods.
Wal-Mart has driven Levi Strauss out of the domestic manufacturig business, because Walmart said they wouldn't stock Levi's unles the wholsale price
was down to X dollars. The only way Levi's could make the cost that low and still mke a profit was to send its factories overseas, so they did. If
you want a pair of Made-in-the-USA britches, they won't be Levi's.
Again, the up-side is that the American consumer wins by paying a lower price for equal quality goods.
Now a lot of people may believe that it would be better if all the stores paid their employees "good" wages, and all the suppliers kept their
factories here in the United States and paid their employees "good" wages, too.
The problem is that, by doing so, the cost of goods to the consumer would double, and we, being consumers, would look for better deals.
Over the past hundred years, Americans have chosen to do a lot of things that help people, like passing minimum wages, forced contributions to
a retirement scheme, environmental laws, safety laws, child labor laws, and so on.
But these same things we do that help people also hurt people, because not everyone in theworld has these laws, so it's a lot
cheaper to build stuff overseas, and this lower cost gets passed along to the American consumer.
Wal-Mart is not big because it's bad, it's big because it offers equal-quality goods to people at a better price. But you can't have it both ways.
Wal-Mart in in the business to make a profit, and they do. They're not going to cut their own throat by increasing the costs associated with their
production and distribution, because if they did, the would lose market share and end up going out of business, and all their employees would not be
...they'd be unemployed.
[edit on 20-3-2005 by Off_The_Street]