Is denying a Wal-Mart class warfare?

[jsk1983]

It seems to come up on these Wal-Mart threads that Wal-Mart puts local, independent businesses out of business. Living in a metropolitan area this is a bit harder to see than it would be in a small town, but I haven't noticed this to be the case. If Wal-Mart put any one out it was K-Mart and Ames and other discount stores. Most of the merchandise at Wal-Mart is generally the domain of chain stores anyways. The price points between the independent stores that line the Main street of my suburban village and Wal-Mart are so vastly different that the two stores are certainly not in competition. In the example of toy stores which should be facing competition from Wal-Mart the two local stores which have been in business for decades are still there. Considering there merchandise is of the collectible/high-end/educational toy variety I don't see Wal-Mart as being a threat. The fact is that middle class independent businesses went out long before Wal-Mart ever came to town.

Yes, Wal-Mart buys most of their merchandise from China and an be cited as a reason that many of these plants set up in China in the first place. If you look at similar merchandise anywhere be it other discount stores, high-end mall chains, local and regional supermarket chains you'll find that the vast majority of these items are made in China.

As for the mechanized farms I think this is a reality that comes with cheap meat. Unless your willing to pay 3X as much for free range/organic meat your chicken probably won't have had a good life. Even Wegmans (a Rochester, NY mid-Atlantic, family owned, regional grocery) which is consistently named one of the best companies to work for has recently come under pressure for the conditions at the company owned egg facility.

[BKM]

While sympathetic to hercules, I'm going to play the devil's advocate here:

Wal Mart is only one of the threats to small, independent business. The Internet is vastly more of a threat in the kinds of "cute" intellectual businesses that are often envisioned by propmoters of New Urbanism.,

In the past month alone, in the vehemently (if superficially and only via lip service) pro-local cute shop Bay Area, the following closures have been announced in one retail segment:

• Cody's Books-flagship Berkeley store closing.
• Clean Well-Lighted Place for Books: A San Francisco independent
• Black Oak Books's San Francisco store
• Book Passages-the owner desperately wants to sell.

So...these cute little store fronts are going to be occupied by what, exactly? Given the demographics and the economic realities of small businesses, the residents of Hercules will dine at (godawful) themed chain restaurants, go to Starbucks by the freeway, not a funky local coffee shop, etc. etc. etc.

[giff57]

It has been shown in various places that small independent businesses can thrive on the Wilmar traffic. People go to these stores for service not price. If the independents are adaptable enough to find and capture their niche, they will do very well.

[burnham follower]

How about that putting stock in your local economy is a lot like putting all your eggs in one basket. And that basket might be dropped by someone who doesn't even live in your community? Even if your entire local economy was Petsmart and McDonalds and Wendys and TrueValue Hardware and a dozen other chain stores, those won't all leave at once. Wal-Mart will.

[jaws]

Surface area of Macy's store in Manhattan: 2,000,000 sqft
Surface area of Bloomingdale's store in Manhattan: 900,000 sqft
Surface area of a generic Wal-Mart store: 500,000 sqft

Macy's and Bloomingdale's didn't kill off small business in Manhattan and they are today landmarks of the city. Why can't Wal-Mart achieve the same?

[BKM]

Surface area of Macy's store in Manhattan: 2,000,000 sqft
Surface area of Bloomingdale's store in Manhattan: 900,000 sqft
Surface area of a generic Wal-Mart store: 500,000 sqft

Macy's and Bloomingdale's didn't kill off small business in Manhattan and they are today landmarks of the city. Why can't Wal-Mart achieve the same?

Come on, jaws. You are comparing apples to oranges. Manhattan has a market of 2.5 million people, along with hundreds of thousands of commuters. It is the center of the American economy in many ways. Plus, it is highly localized and pedestrian-oriented. The local stores survive because they provide a localized niche to customers on foot or using public transit.

To assume that Manhattan, a very unique situation, is somehow an example that can be applied in a typical lower density suburban area is disingenuous.

[jaws]

Come on, jaws. You are comparing apples to oranges. Manhattan has a market of 2.5 million people, along with hundreds of thousands of commuters. It is the center of the American economy in many ways. Plus, it is highly localized and pedestrian-oriented. The local stores survive because they provide a localized niche to customers on foot or using public transit.

You got that right, the local stores survive because they provide a niche. They compete with the big stores by offering something different. Manhattan has stores all over the damn place. Megastores like Macy's, chain stores like the Gap and small, quirky mom & pop stores.

We know now that Wal-Mart stores aren't killing off the small stores in low-density areas. It is lack of access that is killing them. Wal-Mart just drives the last nail in their coffins.

[burnham follower]

You got that right, the local stores survive because they provide a niche. They compete with the big stores by offering something different. Manhattan has stores all over the damn place. Megastores like Macy's, chain stores like the Gap and small, quirky mom & pop stores.

We know now that Wal-Mart stores aren't killing off the small stores in low-density areas. It is lack of access that is killing them. Wal-Mart just drives the last nail in their coffins.

But Wal-Mart epitomizes that lack of access, it isn't just the last nail. Wal-Mart capitolizes on the one stop shop parking lot village. You couldn't reasonably walk to Wal-Mart without it being a waste of time. Walk across the parking lot to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk? Even a t-shirt.

And as for that landmark status....Wal-Mart is cookie cutter, Macy's and Bloomingdales are not. The Mannhattan Stores, I believe, are originals, not every store is a landmark, but each has it's own character, Wal-Marts do not. I would have no problem considering the Original Wal-Mart a landmark, but not for it's architecture. Any 5 year old with Lego's could build a walmart

[jaws]

But Wal-Mart epitomizes that lack of access, it isn't just the last nail. Wal-Mart capitolizes on the one stop shop parking lot village. You couldn't reasonably walk to Wal-Mart without it being a waste of time. Walk across the parking lot to buy a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk? Even a t-shirt.

That's not Wal-Mart's responsibility, that's the city's. Wal-Mart operates in the kind of environment that is available to them, mainly sprawl. They only get so much bad press because they are the most successful at it, but they didn't create the system, they only profited from it.

[mokbubble]

Whether or not wal-mart helps a community, is based on the situation. I think Wal-mart could really help some troubled suburbs like Compton, where prices are supposedly ridiculous. Wal-mart provides jobs, but replaces better paying ones in the process. I think in middle class neighborhoods it is a net loss replacing unionized grocery stores with wal-mart super stores everywhere. It is also a drain when wal-mart gets sweetheart deals where they dont have to pay property tax etc in places like California where cities could easily use the land for something else. In other areas that are perpetual vacant lots, adding some sales tax revenue might be a good thing even if you have to bend over backwards. I think the whole issue is complicated.


As for me I hate the lousy places, but my preferences shoudln't dictate how others live.

[hitchhiker]

No. Absolutely not. Our town has organized a coalition and multiple protests to stop a 61-acre Super Walmart with strip mall from going up outside of town. The thing that gives us hope is that the land in question is zoned 'Light Industrial'-- therefore, in order for the shopping center to be built zoning laws have to be changed. We're not anti-industrial in our area-- our town's foundry and mills are expanding and providing good jobs for skilled workers. We'd rather see that land developed in the form of an industrial park, or even better, we'd like to see it remain farmland. We also want to protect our newly-thriving Main Street, filled with hardware, clothing, and grocery stores. Having a Walmart would make the community poorer through low-paying jobs, it would kill Main Street, and it would funnel money retained in the neighborhood through family-owned stores to Bentonville, AK or some such place.

[biscuit]

I’d have to say no. My municipality has a certain discount retailer proposing to build a very urban, contextually sensitive store, adjacent to a transit oriented development. There is also another like retailer that is rumored to be interested in building a cookie-cutter suburban model store only a couple of blocks away. So if we have to pick one to dump infrastructure money into, who do you honestly think that will be?

[portlandrican]

Repo Man raises some good points! he's right about Target being cool. I have lived in a bunch of places and seldom have I seen Target get hassled over coming into the neighborhood. ok, I've seen some, but nowhere as near as Wal-Mart. I'm not the biggest fan of Wal-Mart but they just aren't liked! they have their fans in many places but when it comes to more afluent areas things turn nasty. from what I have experienced, working with Target is much easier, as opossed to Wal-Mart reps. this is all from experience.

I see where Repo Man is coming from and it's true. not everyone has the ambition or drive to land a high paying job. it's a choice some people make. I know all about missed opportunites and so on from the perspective of a Latino from the South Bronx. but, some people just don't want a high flying career for whatever reason.

[BKM]

I see where Repo Man is coming from and it's true. not everyone has the ambition or drive to land a high paying job. it's a choice some people make. I know all about missed opportunites and so on from the perspective of a Latino from the South Bronx. but, some people just don't want a high flying career for whatever reason.

Given that this is true, should such peopke be consigned to poverty level wages with no healthcare or secuirty of retirement?

[portlandrican]

Given that this is true, should such peopke be consigned to poverty level wages with no healthcare or secuirty of retirement?

I see what your saying, especially from the standpoint of people who are trying to support their families with these salaries. Its a very tough situation.

[BKM]

I see what your saying, especially from the standpoint of people who are trying to support their families with these salaries. Its a very tough situation.

LOL.

From Conservatives for American Values]

Your wage is fair to me

Dear American workers…none of us care if you think your pay is too low. You all need to realize that we business owners did not go into business for you. We want the money, and we demand that you make it for us. We will decide what you will be paid, and you will have no choice but to live with that. You talk about wanting a “living wage”. What is that? I am quite able to live with the wage I pay my employees. They are able to make it to work, and none of them have starved in recent memory. Stop whining, and get back to being a producer…of my profits.

[GreenGirl]

Most of the people I know here and elsewhere who refuse to shop at Wal-Mart are not wealthy. In fact, the richest folks I talk to on a regular basis buy lots of stuff at Wal-Mart. I suppose that's why they have more money than I - who shop with local merchants I know -

Right-O, Lee! As one opposed to the environmentally damaging and socially homogenizing effects of big boxes such as Wal-Mart - let me add that Wal-Mart in particular has falsely low prices- let's think about who ends up paying the difference in the long-run... US workers, taxpayers, foreign factory workers, local businesses, Earth's climate... yep, I could go on and on.

[Southernbille]

The Wal-Mart that was built in New Orleans on the site of a public housing complex drew STRONG criticism, and the design Wal-Mart proposed (the usual) was basically used except it substituted red brick to "blend in" with the rest of the area, right next to the Warehouse District, although better plans were feasable. If the design fits in well with the redevelopment plan, why not? The people will come, regardless. People will drive out of town to shop at a Wal-Mart instead of paying higher prices at other stores, so why not keep the tax revenue in town?

[BKM]

Oh, and I know it is probably not PC to say this but when people complain about the crappy low-skill, low-wage dead-end jobs provided by Wal Mart people need to realize that some people just aren't smart enough or motivated enough to have a decent paying job. The notion that everyone in this country can somehow work their way up to a decent paying job is a farce. There will always be people who will spend their whole life working in the service industry because that is all they are cut out to do.

So...is your argument then that these people "deserve" to have crappy lives, living in poverty, with no health care, no hope for their children, really, at the mercy of ridiculous rules and job requirements (like the WalMart that tried to require its employees be "on call" 20 hours per day in case they were needed for "customer service," etc. etc. etc. This in a society that can spend a trillion dollars every couple of years for "defense"?

I'm sorry. I find that offensive as hell. My mother was certainly not "capable" of being a high level executive, either. Did she deserve to be poor most of her life? Especially since many, if not most, corporate managers spend much of their time playing politics, backstabbing, interefering in the actual productive work being accomplished by their employees, etc. etc. etc. Certainly not worth 50:1 or 600:1 or whatever ridiculous ratio of pay that their own class, their own cronies, have bestowed upon them in the incestuose way that pay is established.

On another note:

What we forget today is that Antitrust was set up for more important reasons than "protecting consumers." Low prices for consumers, at any cost at any expense, is not the be all and end all of the economic system. Antitrust was established by political thinkers who realized that eliminating competion through consolidation of control into fewer and fewer hands was bad for the overall economic structure of society-and, ultimately but not excliusively, for "consumers." Last month's Harper's Magazine has a quite interesting article on why WalMart should be subjected to antitrust.

[Hawkeye66]

The idea that good management can just fall off a tree is ridiculous. No one is overpaid. It's a brutal arms race, but thats the way it is.

If someone working at Wal-Mart could make more, they would. Some do move up. Capital concentrates in a market system. No kidding. People like paying low prices. I admit I do. I like getting two pairs of sweat pants for $10.

[BKM]

The idea that good management can just fall off a tree is ridiculous. No one is overpaid. It's a brutal arms race, but thats the way it is.

If someone working at Wal-Mart could make more, they would. Some do move up. Capital concentrates in a market system. No kidding. People like paying low prices. I admit I do. I like getting two pairs of sweat pants for $10.

Capital may "concentrate" which is why you need the State or society to ameliorate or reduce that concentration.

As for "nobody is overpaid."? Come on. That's ridiculous. Hundreds of millions of dollars in golden parachutes after running a Company into the ground? You also ignore how and who sets executive salaries: it's other CEOs, a cozy little club.

[Hawkeye66]

You are using your own values to make a subjective decision about who is overpaid. Thats my point. Most people I know angle for the best pay they can in their profession. Even planners and city managers! Or CEO's or anyone.

The next fool theory...you are worth what the next fool is willing to pay you.

[KSharpe]

You are using your own values to make a subjective decision about who is overpaid. Thats my point. Most people I know angle for the best pay they can in their profession. Even planners and city managers! Or CEO's or anyone.

The next fool theory...you are worth what the next fool is willing to pay you.

In a civilized society, we should be aiming for everyone, despite their mental or educational limitations, to be able to live a basic, decent existence by working 40 hours a week. And please don't forget, it's not just the people without awesome careers who suffer, it's their kids as well. And they are powerless to do anything about it.

[Luca]

In a civilized society, we should be aiming for everyone, despite their mental or educational limitations, to be able to live a basic, decent existence by working 40 hours a week. And please don't forget, it's not just the people without awesome careers who suffer, it's their kids as well. And they are powerless to do anything about it.

Why 40 hours? Most people with good jobs work more than THAT.

[BKM]

Why 40 hours? Most people with good jobs work more than THAT.

That's because we've been sold a bill of goods-get on the rat race treadmill, or you'll be in poverty.

He's arguing that the Gospel(s) of Work -- neopuritanism, fetishizing productivity inter alia -- are theologically bankrupt doctrines, incompatible with a Christian culture. That much is clear to me. I have an apothegmatic distillation: Amway sales boosterism should not be confused with the Sermon on the Mount.

I found something that fits alongside it at Tom's blog.


Q: The notion of 'decision' occupies a pivotal place in your reflections: what is the place of the decision in your concept of the political? Does it somehow replace justice?

JD: It does not replace it, on the contrary it is indissociable from it. There is no 'politics', no law, no ethics without the responsibility of a decision which, to be just, cannot content itself with applying existing norms or rules but must take the absolute risk, in every singular instant, or justifying itself again, alone, as if for the first time, even if it is inscribed in a tradition.


Authoritarianism is grounded in setting up a structure that forces obedient productivity, while negating the individual agency of the structure's supporters. It does that through a set of philosphy-related program activity talking points -- think tank eructations.

McCarraher, in the first article, says of the tankers and their ilk:


When confronted with these objections, the acolytes of the Work Ethic rehearse the boilerplate of Progress. Thanks to hard work, they scold, we're richer, more comfortable, healthier, and technologically adept. As is so often the case with the apologists of Mammon, historical illiteracy passes for "realism," and quantity becomes an intimidating surrogate for quality and morality. Talk of alternatives, ethics, or aesthetics is dismissed as the elitist bray of those who've never—select your cliché from the following menu—Worked Hard, Met a Payroll, or Had the Headaches that Come with Running a Business.


There's plenty of career to be had in shilling for Mammon