Anti Wal Mart

Sigh... This stays in the news. Now, Walmart is trying to force it's way into another town nearby... as the company continues it's plan to have a store every 5 miles.. the town meeting against them is still going on.... and expected to go well after midnight. There has to be deep reasons why ppl and towns don't want the giant...things we don't know (as if putting every small business out of business isn't enough?)

A little bit of sidenote here. When ppl need government assistance, such as foodstamps, that is to help them get "on their feet" and not a lifestyle/lifetime proposal. There's nothing wrong with using it to do that. I think those who need to shop at the cheaper dept stores, until the can do better, is what many ppl need to do.

I remain firm that the majority of the products bought from these types of stores do NOT last like the major stores' products (JC Penney, Lord & Taylor..etc) I have never had any fabric...clothes nor linens last more than a few years at most, from Walmart, Kmart, Target. I have clothes that are like new from the other higher end stores... going on 13 years (after Andrew hurricane purchases.) My mother has clothes she's had from the better stores.. well 30 years or more (yes, they go and come back into style )
Electronics from Radio Shack, Sound Advice etc last longer than the electronics from the Marts, in general. When you are able to buy quality that lasts, you can begin to save money...in the long haul.. .which is where wealth really counts. I wish you all wealth!

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Nike was exposed first......then Kathy Lee Griffin.......and on and on.......i guess we could all grow cotton and sheep and do our own thing with the fabrics.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

There I think you've got it. In today's busy world, it almost sounds crazy, but everybody doesn't have to do everything. I think that the problem isn't WalMart per se, but rather just that we have gotten so far away from meeting our own needs, that people in general don't understand what is involved, and they take it all for granted.

It makes me so incredibly sad that now it is to the point where you have to be wealthy to be able to afford to participate in producing your own food and clothes, and being self-sufficient. Farming is either big mega-business or a very expensive hobby. Small farms just plain can't make it if they have to be self-supporting. It costs more to grow a garden than to buy canned goods at the store.

Once upon a time a measure of wealth was how many sheep you owned. Now animals are a liability. You have to keep them fenced (and land gets more and more unaffordable), and you have to buy hay to feed them (which gets harder to find and more expensive each year, as more houses are built on top of what used to be hay fields).

Most of my grandparents had family farms when they were children. They had small family farms as a way to provide for themselves and bring in a bit of income. So did everyone else. My grandfather lived on a farm in an isolated rural community that is now Park City, Utah. His family owned some of the land where Cottonwood Mall now sits (they sold it way too soon!)

Now I want to hang on to a few goats and sheep, and the right to raise chickens. We are moving back near the area where my grandfather once farmed because they had to in order to survive, and we are a middle-class family, moving up, and we can't afford land that will permit us to do that.

Most of the properties here where I am moving from could be homes to small farms, but only a handful of people live that way. If you can do a little, whether it's growing a garden or keeping a couple of goats, or sewing some of your own clothes, hang on to that and teach it to your children.

My grandparents' generation were generally happy to be free from having to spin and weave their own cloth and raise their own food. Those were burdens that were time-consuming and hard work. Now they are almost lost arts to us, as everything is mass-produced by people who get very little for their effort, and the products are made to wear out quickly and be thrown away so that we will buy more of them. Wal-Mart and other big businesses contribute to this.

We have a crisis in America because we don't want to pay what it costs for minimum wage and benefits for workers to produce most of our food, so mostly illegal immigrants do those jobs. We depend on them because nobody else will do those jobs, but we don't want to give them benefits or make them citizens. Then they might not do those jobs either.

Too many children (and adults) don't understand where their food and clothing come from - even the basics. Nobody has taught them any more than it just comes from the store. Too many people waste what we have, and don't respect the plants and animals that produce it, and the people who labor to bring it to us.

I wish that more people would participate even in some small way, so that they would understand, and their children would understand, and they would know how to provide for themselves if the stores stopped providing.

I wish that more people had the opportunity to have land and gardens and animals.

We need to support small farms and small businesses as much as we can, so that somebody at least can maintain these skills, even if it costs a little more. And also to enhance our own quality of life.

We might find out that we are better off. We have too much stuff anyway, and we don't need it. It just complicates our lives and wastes money and time and other resources.

I'm still guilty of trying to save money buy getting things as cheap as possible, but I went to some workshops by Micheal Colgrass a while ago. One of the things he talked about was a musician he used to be in a band with when they were young and poor. He noticed that the other musician seemed to live much better than the rest, and knowing that they all had the same income, he asked how. The secret was "I never buy anything cheap." When he wanted or needed something, he saved for it and got the best one he could find, regardless of the price. Things last, and he was also given better deals when he demonstrated that he knew what he was looking for and appreciated quality. There is a difference, and we could afford nicer things if we stopped spending our money on junk.

Sorry for the novel.

Rap

It's hard to completely avoid "the bad guys." Even if you make your own stuff, chances are, the items you buy to make them come from big business somewhere along the line, or the items that make those items. I think it's great to protest companies that do things that offend you, but I'm not sure it's effective in most cases. People protest Walmart, Burger King, and other businesses that abuse people or animals along the way, but those companies are doing okay. Some are doing damn fine.

A few days ago, I saw some war protesters. There were only four or five of them. It's great that they're standing up for themselves, but I don't think they cause any changes. I doubt few, if any, people see them and change their opinions.

Big businesses won't change if enough people don't stand up to them. It's hard to motivate people when they know that other people aren't going to stand up. People are apathetic.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
fayerody said:JustBen, do you care about the child that made the shirt that helped WalMart give the $4mil to the college?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I do care about that child, and I'm glad that my purchase makes it possible for her to have a meal today. It's easy to talk about forbidding child labor in a society like ours--but in the third world, kids work because they must in order to survive. If that little girl wasn't putting in a shift today, do you think she'd be going to school, playing with friends, and having a gee-golly swell life? Think again. Kids that can't make money still have to eat--and since there's no welfare system, food stamps, or public assistance of any kind available to them, they'll find other ways to make money...breaking their backs in agricultural work or prostituting themselves.

I give to charity, but that's a drop in the bucket. These kids have to survive. Rich countries can forbid child labor and take a self-righteous attitude about it; poor countries don't have that luxury because righteousness doesn't put rice in the bowl. Sad but true.

Hi Maven.

Those few war protestors did make a difference. You noticed and thought about it, then you shared it and got me thinking about it. A ripple can become a wave

Thanks all so much for replying to this thread, all your opinions mean alot to me and I respect them all.

That is true a ripple can become a wave..... and I have been a wave a time or two in my life - and it worked.

I would like to add a little to what Maven stated in her last post (that of which I agree with) - while we may boycott the BIG COMPANY, we are always lining their pockets through other means, for they have the sister / brother companies that are small and they go by a different name..... some times there are several of these smaller companies per one BIG COMPANY.

And did you know that many big companies have major stock in the PORN industry so every time you buy their products you are helping them destroy Americana and the moral values of our society....
EXAMPLE: Coke, AT&T, Hunts, Movie Gallery, Walt Disney.

Just a little FYI - so in the end I still say:
More Power to YOU for Standing up for Something YOU believe in.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

I recall (and have done so before on this) when in the 70s the price of beef in the USA went up to $1.00 a pound... an outrageous jump at that time. Well a few housewives (sorry, that's what they were called) began to make a stink, and, even without internet... the story got out and boycotts of beef, area by area were made. With the boycotts, it took less than 2 weeks for the price of beef to drop back down to the former prices.

If you don't buy it, they can't sell it.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
That is true a ripple can become a wave..... and I have been a wave a time or two in my life - and it worked.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

But I didn't think about it. I thought about the protesters. I didn't think about the war or change my opinion about it.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
And did you know that many big companies have major stock in the PORN industry so every time you buy their products you are helping them destroy Americana and the moral values of our society....

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes, I knew that. I don't think it destroys the moral values of our society. I like porn. Not all of it, but some. Some of our forefathers, such as Washington and Jefferson, were adulterers and read porn of their times.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Maven said:
</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
And did you know that many big companies have major stock in the PORN industry so every time you buy their products you are helping them destroy Americana and the moral values of our society....

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Yes, I knew that. I don't think it destroys the moral values of our society. I like porn. Not all of it, but some. Some of our forefathers, such as Washington and Jefferson, were adulterers and read porn of their times.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

YES I know that some of our great men from the past have seen / used porn... but that in and of its self does not make it right or mean that we should accept it as so..... for this I know - many other people that have used this stuff (smut to me) have also sexually abused innocent children and raped women after doing so - after becoming sexually aroused without control.

Please know that I did not place my post to debate with those that use or enjoy porn - just to state what I know of the matter and to voice my opinion..... nothing else.
I am neither condemning or judging, just sharing.

...................... PeAcE.

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

So tell me, is the thread then wanting to make us wonder about any and all large corporations? huh huh huh?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
So tell me, is the thread then wanting to make us wonder about any and all large corporations? huh huh huh?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Possibly..... but I was just trying to widen the knowledge base of other BIG COMPANIES and their going on's - in the end everyone has to decided for themselves

LoVe,
Rhapsody -

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>

The secret was "I never buy anything cheap."

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

My point earlier in this thread was that Price does not equal Quality. I wish it were true, but it's not. Price = Something that can sometimes be related to quality, but isn't always. Are $120 sneakers better than my $25 sneakers? Is the $1,000 sofa better than then $500 sofa? Sometimes yes, but as I've discovered (the hard way), I have yet to determine the one to one relationship between Price and Quality.

I own a wonderful sedan, but it's not a BMW. I think it's probably just as good as a BMW in driving dynamics, fit and finish quality, types of materials used, but it cost half the money and unlike many BMW owners I know, it has never been in the shop for any unexpected repairs.

Most of Walmart sells are not durable goods or long-lasting products -- much of their sales is in everyday household items and clothing. I can buy a $100 name-brand shirt at Macy's, or a $20 shirt at Walmart. In many cases, I'd be hard pressed to tell you which was which a year from now.

Worse yet, much (but not all) of the clothing comes from the same places (just as most of our meat comes from the same places here in the U.S.). The shirt cost both companies about $2.00 to produce. I'm just giving far more profit to one company over the other. (The markup on eyeglass frames is even worse -- $300 designer frames at Lenscrafters? They cost the same as the frames at Walmart, about $3-6 each -- no matter what the name is on it.)

We're increasingly living in a global society where brand rarely means the same thing it did even 10 or 20 years ago. Many American cars have more foreign parts in them than so-called Japanese cars.; most Hondas are "made in America" now; while most VWs are built and assembled in Mexico. My Mazda was built in Michigan from mostly American parts. I'd like to say it means something when I buy a certain product or brand, or refuse to buy from one company over another.

But except for a precious few companies (such as Starbucks) that makes it a part of their corporate culture to know and understand how their business impacts their entire supply chain, most companies don't care how they get the consumer the product.

I think the key idea is don't buy cheap, but buy inexpensive?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
_Sky said:
I think the key idea is don't buy cheap, but buy inexpensive?

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">


LOL - I buy affordable...........................

Right. Paying more money for something doesn't make it better. You have to pay attention to the quality of what you are buying. "Cheap" refers as much to the quality of the merchandise as it does to the price. The point in never buying anything cheap is not allowing yourself to get nickeled and dimed to death with stuff that isn't made to last.

I doubt that I'll ever own a BMW. I'm currently driving a little old Saturn that one of my neighbors found at auction in Vegas. I paid $2000 for it. Two weeks later I was driving down the highway and the transmission fell out of it. It was almost $3000 to fix the transmission. I knew before buying the car that the windows don't work and the fender is broken. Actually, it seems fitting for me to be driving a little car with a broken fender - we match. But the point is if I had done what my husband wanted to do, I could have spent that same $5000 and gotten a decent car that would run well and everything worked. Obviously, I haven't learned my lesson yet.

In looking for a house to buy, I could choose based on what I can get for the least money, or find one that is a place where I want to live. I've done it the first way in the past, and lived in a tiny 2-bedroom, 1000 square foot house where the heater didn't work and I was miserable and embarassed to have anyone over. Now my husband is telling me that the houses we want (where we could have a bit of land and animal rights) are out of our price range. But it would really only be a difference of maybe $300 per month, and either way we know will have a house payment. I should be able to get a decent job in the city too (I've never earned more than $8000 in any year so far, and now I should be able to do better than that, I hope).

Sometimes what you buy at WalMart is the same as anyplace else. I find that it's really hard to get out of that place without also buying a bunch of junk that I wouldn' t have known that I needed if it hadn't been placed so conveniently in front of me and priced so cheaply. But it adds up. And then there are the things that look the same, but they aren't. For example, read the technical details on things like vacuum cleaners. The ones at WalMart have a lower powered motor than the ones at a hardware store. They look the same and are made by the same company, and have the same name, but in order to meet WalMart's cost demands, those companies have had to lower their quality. They work for a while, but then they keep getting clogged because they don't have enough power to really handle the job. I have a dead vacuum cleaner collection on my front deck.

Paying for name brands probably isn't usually worth it, unless there is a real difference in the product. You can get decent shoes for $25. But the ones I spent $2 on at a discount store and my daughter wore out in a week because inside they were made out of what looks like cardboard were cheap and a waste of money.

I'm wondering if I will ever learn.

Rap

Doc John I completely agree with you. I recently had a minor argument with my sister in law that pays about $45 a bottle for shampoo...I think that is crazy...I can spend $1.29 for my brand and my hair feels great! For her it is about statis...for me it is economy and refusing name brand stuff that just eats up my money.

The debate over the relative quality of Wal-Mart wares is nothing at all to do with my objection to its continued existence. Those of you who continue to defend them clearly do not understand the social cost of your support. Please see WaltMart Facts and Figures. You lose far more than you gain in your relationship.

Further, it saddens me to see the specious argument put forward that, effectively, if it weren't Wal-Mart, someone else would be doing the same thing anyway so why make any effort. If you believe this, I wonder if you can so easily apply it to other subjects, say organized crime or drug dealing. When they put one away, another one just comes along to take up the space, so why bother? Jails are full of them and getting fuller all the time. But you do bother. Because you don't want it to be your brother/mother/son/whatever that ends up getting shot or hooked on drugs or living below the poverty line. To me, these are equally criminal in this day and age and those in the third category will only increase more rapidly with time while Wal-Mart continues to exist.

Lest anyone think I see myself as blameless in all things, I know there are other "compromises" I choose to accept in my daily life of which I am not proud but to which I freely admit whether shame-facedly or defiantly. I think all who are not divorced from society altogether compromise at one point or another, whether they defend their choices or cop to them. But Wal-Mart is exceptional in the consequences for all of us that it will have on society.

Anyway, my point is well summarized by the last paragraph of the website above.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Wal-Mart is not creating jobs in our communities. Wal-Mart's business practices simply exchange decent jobs with health benefits for lower-paying jobs and taxpayer-subsidized health care. The truth is Wal-Mart is forcing good-paying American jobs overseas. Wal-Mart is creating an America of lower wages, no health care and lack of retirement security.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Please note that, while this is a union website, I am actually not at all fond of unions and have no bias in their favor in this matter. However, that single website accurately reflects my view, and if the title is to believed, it is also factual, and as such, lends support to my argument without regard to their affiliation.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
The truth is Wal-Mart is forcing good-paying American jobs overseas

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

I do believe "good paying jobs being "forced" overseas started way before wal mart even existed..........I read somewhere where taxes are being done by overseas folks... What does taxes have to do with wal mart???? or nike shoes??? '

The wal mart here is huge and there are lots of folks employed there...There is a huge wal mart in the lil town I used to live it.. It was open 24 hours a day...Seems to me that is pretty much employing folks...... Wonder where these folks would be working if wal mart wasn't there...

it would be nice if there were more english speaking folks employed at wal mart and other local stores... but I do believe that is another topic...

ANYWAY I LOVE WAL MART..

Ugh. Who have ears to hear, let them hear.

lol

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
Rebound said:Please note that, while this is a union website, I am actually not at all fond of unions and have no bias in their favor in this matter. However, that single website accurately reflects my view, and if the title is to believed, it is also factual, and as such, lends support to my argument without regard to their affiliation.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">

Whether or not you are biased or unbiased in this matter is irrelevant, as is your opinion about unions. The real question is whether or not the union itself is biased--and if so, how does it affect the content of this webpage? Look a little deeper than the bullet points and you'll see the bias shining through.

Here are just a few examples:
The site criticizes Wal-Mart for selling Chinese goods because of the horrendous working conditions in Chinese factories. Fair enough. But take a look at the UFCW's roster sometime and you'll see that most of their retail membership is making a living selling Chinese-manufactured goods, too. So if Walmart sells Chinese goods it's terrible, but when UFCW members do it's okay?

The UFCW compares the wages of Walmart to those of grocery workers in general and Walmart comes up short. Seems pretty cut-and-dry, right? Except that the UFCW is comparing the wages of hourly Walmart employees to those of grocery workers in general--hourly and salaried. Apples and oranges. (Not to mention the fact that they're comparing the wages of people who work in grocery stores to the wages of people who work in a store that sells much more than groceries.)

UFCW criticizes Wal-Mart for offering store managers bonuses for controlling operating costs...yet this is true for virtually every food service and retail establishment in the country.

And finally, the overall point of the site is that since Walmart offers such crappy wages/hours/benefits we should not support them. This is based on the fallacy, however, that if Walmart shut down, all their employees would somehow magically find jobs in places with better working conditions, pay, and benefits. (Unless you're starting a business in your area that can provide such jobs, then it's not a good idea to make that kind of promise.)

They make some good points, but you have to keep their bias in mind as well. Just because you agree with someone doesn't mean they're being fair.

You begin by stating my bias is irrelevant, and follow it with an analysis of the UFCW. My intent was to focus on the facts on that page. Draw your own conclusions from them.

My analysis was based on facts related to the webpage you linked to, not on whether or not I like unions. That UFCW members sell Chinese goods, that they compared two different wage structures, and that most retail/food service companies offer managers bonuses based on cost control are all facts. (The last point about jobs isn't quite a fact.)

I said that your bias for or against unions is irrelevant because it didn't seem to make any difference at all in your acceptance of the "facts" presented on the UFCW webpage.

I really can see both sides of the argument here, and I'm willing to accept the possibility that Walmart harms society more than it helps it...I just don't see any balance in most of the arguments I read online or in the press.

I don't pay $45 for shampoo, but I have been using salon brands for a few years now. I used the stuff you can buy in any department store for all my life before that, and I can tell you, there is a difference. I used to have very bad split ends, but no longer. I don't think price determines quality; I'm not saying that. And I'm not saying there aren't good, cheap shampoos. But I've never had my hair without terrible split ends until I tried the salon shampoos (it took a haircut and several months before they stopped). I know that companies will charge whatever they think they can get you to pay. So, quality isn't always a determiner of price. There are honest people who make quality products and charge a higher price because the products are worth it, and then there are greedy scumsuckers who make crap and overcharge for it because, "There's a sucker born every minute."