It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by lordtyp0
This part is problematic: Lower prices for consumers is fine and dandy. But the destruction of local business = fewer jobs and less buying power in a city.
1 You do not have the money to build such a structure.
2 You go out of busniness because you can offer limited items in a limited shop, limited by space and limited by the money you have, and since they have it all why bother to go to your shop and then to another shop when I can get it all in one place.
3 Since they sell alot they can afford to lower prices, you can not.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by lordtyp0
This part is problematic: Lower prices for consumers is fine and dandy. But the destruction of local business = fewer jobs and less buying power in a city.
So having a Wal Mart in a community means less jobs?
Isn't Wal Mart one of the largest job creators in the US?
Wal Mart doesn't destroy jobs, they create jobs.
If you mean "good high paying jobs" - no domestic retail outlet pays its store employees high wages. None. So how is Wal Mart doing anything different?
The reasons why wal mart is able to put mom and pop out of business is because they can offer a much large range of products (good for consumers) at cheaper prices (good for consumers).
Originally posted by lordtyp0
reply to post by mnemeth1
Sorry, I did not mean to imply Wal-Mart was a monopoly. I actually define them as a predatory company-well on it's way of becoming a monopoly.
The evidence of that is how all stores around crumble. Sears Grand is struggling, Kmart was also hit hard. Target reduced it's stores.
In the City of Tooele Utah (bout half an hour west of Salt Lake) there were 3 grocery stores. A Wal-Mart super center set up shop. One of the stores folded. The other two (Albertsons and Smiths) made an arrangement of trading territory: They agreed to pull stores and give regions to the other-otherwise they both would have folded as the other store did.
Though Wal-Mart is not a classic monopoly they hold all the power of one.
but if I had a business and was after the quick money grab (as most are) I cannot say for certain if my methods would be different.
Originally posted by lordtyp0
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by lordtyp0
This part is problematic: Lower prices for consumers is fine and dandy. But the destruction of local business = fewer jobs and less buying power in a city.
So having a Wal Mart in a community means less jobs?
Isn't Wal Mart one of the largest job creators in the US?
Wal Mart doesn't destroy jobs, they create jobs.
If you mean "good high paying jobs" - no domestic retail outlet pays its store employees high wages. None. So how is Wal Mart doing anything different?
The reasons why wal mart is able to put mom and pop out of business is because they can offer a much large range of products (good for consumers) at cheaper prices (good for consumers).
They are amongst the largest single employers, not job creation.
They put other stores out of business creating a larger labor pool. Then they absorb the labor at reduced rates (Smiths pays 9.50/hour. Wal-mart is minimum wage, also they do not allow overtime or even full time designation to avoid any benefits).
This is not job creation.
They are amongst the largest single employers, not job creation.
They put other stores out of business creating a larger labor pool. Then they absorb the labor at reduced rates (Smiths pays 9.50/hour. Wal-mart is minimum wage, also they do not allow overtime or even full time designation to avoid any benefits).
Originally posted by boniknik
reply to post by mnemeth1
I think you are mistaken about socialism, socialism is collective ownership, without it you will have no military, no firefighters, no cops, no roads, no public schools, etc. Any country/society that collects taxes is a socialist country/community.
It is capitalism/free market that creates monopolies, in a free market there is no regulation, companies gets too big that they can kill small businesses and new businesses.
Regulation is necessary.
Remember when Wall Street was collapsing? All of a sudden they wanted government intervention to bail them out. After the bail out, when the government wants to regulate them so it doesn't happen again... They scream..."No to government intervention, we want a free market!"
In a free market, there will be no intervention, if they collapse there's no bail out.
2. government regulation created the financial crisis, not free markets
Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by pepsi78
1 You do not have the money to build such a structure.
2 You go out of busniness because you can offer limited items in a limited shop, limited by space and limited by the money you have, and since they have it all why bother to go to your shop and then to another shop when I can get it all in one place.
3 Since they sell alot they can afford to lower prices, you can not.
It seriously hurts my head when i get this angry at such a flimsy argument:
1.) WalMart didn't magically have enough money to become as big as they are for no reason. They started small, and worked their way up. They offered us what Mom & Pop refused to: Good Prices on the items we need/want.
2.) If you find that you are 100% unable to compete with something, then you should try something else. Offer something walmart does not sell. Don't open up a grocer next to Walmart and then expect to compete. Its not walmarts fault that customers want to pay lower prices and you can't offer them. its your fault.
3.) Yes, they sell alot. Thats not their fault. That's the seed they have sewn. They are successful. You are not. That is nto their fault. Blame yourself, not somebody else.
These kinds of arugments remind me of my brother & his son. His son will mess up (lets say he scribbles with a crayon on the wall) and his dad was scold him for it.
His Boy (Jeremy) will scream and kick and swear up and down that it wasn't him, that it was his friend (i forget his name) but his "friend" is invisible of course.
It wasn't Jeremys' fault, it can't be. It never is Jeremy's fault. But in reality, it was Jeremy's fault...its just that Jeremy's too immature to accept responsibility for his own actions at such an early age.
My how the irony staggers.
Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by lordtyp0
They are amongst the largest single employers, not job creation.
They put other stores out of business creating a larger labor pool. Then they absorb the labor at reduced rates (Smiths pays 9.50/hour. Wal-mart is minimum wage, also they do not allow overtime or even full time designation to avoid any benefits).
You are assuming that "Smiths" pays $9.50 an hour for a cashier clerk spot...but your'e wrong.
I honestly just called my local IGA and they pay the Illinois Min. Wage. Walmart, for the same spot, pays $0.25 more per hour.
if you think i'm making it up - call them yourself
(217) 352-0019 - Jerry's IGA
(217) 344-6148 - Walmart on high Cross roads
[edit on 29-12-2009 by Snarf]
Regardless of how Walmart once embodied the American Dream, they are now the American Nightmare. Most communities see getting a walmart as some social acceptance of their town. Then it all goes down the toilet.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by lordtyp0
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by lordtyp0
(snip for space)
So being the largest employer is not "job creation?"
If the government forced wal mart to give all manner of benefits to its employees, but didn't do the same thing to Target, do you think Wal Mart would be in business very long?
If the government forced all retailers to give huge benefits to their employees, do you think any store but Wal Mart would be in business for very long?
What benefits wal mart more?
More regulation or less?
[edit on 29-12-2009 by mnemeth1]
Originally posted by lordtyp0
Job Creation means actually creating jobs. Not reshuffling them.
Target gives full benefits to employees.
Given what you have described: Less regulation benefits from. Though it seems we disagree on what regulation is.
I am defining regulation as a low or structure that dictates things a company cannot do. Please correct me if wrong (I know you will ): It seems like you are stating regulation is any law be it beneficial or harmful to their business practice.
Example: Most states have certain expectations on 'full time employment' and give a regulation on what a company has to do if they have a full time employee. Walmart gets around this by holding employees under the full time definition (usually, but not always: 40 hours a week). Even if the employee is at 39.99 hours, they are still not full time.
The regulation is full time designation. The loophole is the 39.99 hours real. Some employers (in Utah I have seen this first hand) will even drop benefits if you go 2 weeks in a row with less than 40 hours time. Like getting sick on a friday and coming back to work on the following monday (scheduled on the weekends). Thats 2 weeks in a row without 40 hours, so-they dropped health benefits and forced a 4 month wait until the next open enrollment.
The 150k/year thing.. Come on, thats just absurd (well, unless hyperinflation then it could happen.).