Is denying a Wal-Mart class warfare?

[BKM]

Well, for what it's worth, good luck to ya.

It definitely seems to em that if things are to be turned around, it msut be a voluntayr decision, rather than something impsoed from outside. That's my main beef with people who get to huffed about a rpviate compaony. IIf you don't liek their policies (say, tehy pay their employees too little, etc.)don't buy there. A commercial comapony is one agent you can generally really screw without drasdic action, you jsut remove theoir raison d'etre.

And yet people don't. They'd rather have the township 'forbid'Wla-Mart than just not shop there (and maybe encourage their friends to do the same). I've found resistance to this sort of 'direct action' amogn a lot of people,e ven close to me. Personally, for instance, I tend to buy as much as possible of my groceries from the farmers' market and lcoal retailers as opposed to supermarket chains. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS FOLKS, IT WORKS

AFA Wal-mart is concerned, I've known a few people who worked there and they seemed to like it fine (i.e. no worse than msot employees I know).

Well...I have bought one thing there over the past five years or so. A new pair of eyeglasses because my old pair had completely disintegrated and my optometrist was unable to turn over a replacement pair and I was desperate. I could have, of course, gone to someone like Lenscrafters or another opticians chain, but...

[fltseng]

First, since I'm fresh out of registration (this is my second post), I'll answer the original posting which is (in case someone has forgotten what the question was in the heat of the conversation)
Is denying a WM class warfare?
Well, it just might look that way. Just might. But under the covers of "good samaritan for demographically lower-income society", there is a system (I believe) that will indefinitely self-destruct in the end. Recently, the Government of Norway pulled out of bonds that they had bought from WM, claiming that under the recent research they had done, they were breaking several laws of employment, trade-ethics, environmental sustainability etc, all from the bottom of production to the end of retail. and so on. I wish they also had written "way of life" as well on that list.
Take this from someone who lives in Europe and has several cultural backgrounds: The fact that "americans are obese" is a COMMONSTANCE PHRASE now. (I hope this isn't an offence to anybody, but even the am. gov. has declared it a problem...) In fact, it goes for Canada aswell. There are other degrading statements about north-american culture, like for example.. sprawl. Now, the more I think about it, the more obvious it gets - there is some kind of correlation between the size of people and the size of the places they go to shop. For humans, it isn't meant to be so abstract. We live in gridlocks and sprawl, we are complaining more than ever (even if we have money), the environment is obviously taking toll because of our ignorance... no, denying WM isn't a class warfare, it just looks that way because it seems like that the only one really objecting to it are the people with more money. There is something WM badly lacks, and that is humanity. These people are fighting against this abstract gridded way of living. In fact, if WM looked like a small village market, I bet people would be paying them to set up shop! These people have some money, so they moved AWAY from Sprawlurbia to live a fuller life where people are closer to eachother. It is a mental thing. In sprawl, community contact is so rare it's disgusting to the human way of life.
Anyways... what I'm trying to say is that there are countless of reasons why WM should try a new market strategy, or that cities should stop making gridlocks. But unless someone comes up with the ultimate solution to satisfy the eyes of the working class, this will continue to be the reality of many booming new-towns with a dead citycore and sprawling suburb. And I really dislike this.

[brandonmason]

Going back to the original question....YES. It is class warfare. You can dress up this issue hawever you want it, but the fact is the typical Wal-Mart shopper stereotype is that of white trash bubbas, who live in trailer parks. We certainly dont want THEM in our community.

Slap the word Target (pronounce Tar zhay), on the sign out front and it will be welcome with open arms.

I firmly believe that most opposition to Wal-Mart stems from racism and classism. You've pointed out a really good piece of evidence--the exact same store with a Target sign will receive very little opposition.

how successful have anti Wla-Mart campaigners (it spoudns silly even to write it...) ben in suign voluntary opposition (i.e. boycotts)? I know for some firms like Nike which were a bit casual about labor standards of their subcontractors the pressure/bad publicity made a big difference. If this does not work with Wal mart, ultiamtely, the peopel to 'blame' (assuming any blame attaches) are Wal-mart customers. Ne-c'est-pas?

The problem here is that few of Wal-Mart's serious opponents want to effect change in the company or make a big difference. You've got politicans just using the company for political gains, unions trying to protect their income from worker check-off dues, competitors trying to gain market share, and activists trying to make an example of a company which is in reality better than most other retialers, and of course the people engaged in class/race warfare.

[Domo-kun]

You've pointed out a really good piece of evidence--the exact same store with a Target sign will receive very little opposition.

Target and Wal-Mart are both discount retailers, yes, but that doesn't mean they are essentially the same store. Unlike Wal-Mart, Target has successfully responded to consumers looking for "cheap chic" products, most notably by introducing lines from high-end fashion designers like Isaac Mizrahi. While Wal-Mart has recently introduced new lines of clothing to appeal to these same consumers, Target still dominates that area of the market. That dominance, I think, is the real reason why plans to build new Targets receive much less opposition, and that is also why I think it's unfair to accuse Target's adherents of latent racism.

(I planned on posting some links to relevant articles in Business Week and CNN, but can't because of my low post count. A Google search for "Wal-Mart" and "fashionable" will quickly reveal them, though.)

[BKM]

Target and Wal-Mart are both discount retailers, yes, but that doesn't mean they are essentially the same store. Unlike Wal-Mart, Target has successfully responded to consumers looking for "cheap chic" products, most notably by introducing lines from high-end fashion designers like Isaac Mizrahi. While Wal-Mart has recently introduced new lines of clothing to appeal to these same consumers, Target still dominates that area of the market. That dominance, I think, is the real reason why plans to build new Targets receive much less opposition, and that is also why I think it's unfair to accuse Target's adherents of latent racism.

(I planned on posting some links to relevant articles in Business Week and CNN, but can't because of my low post count. A Google search for "Wal-Mart" and "fashionable" will quickly reveal them, though.)

I think you're slightly misunderstanding the argument. Target appeals to the middle class and the thrifty hipsters, so they are willing to overlook the fact that it's another community-destroying ( ) bib box store. Wal Mart only serves "those people," so we can eagerly oppose it.

[Domo-kun]

I think you're slightly misunderstanding the argument. Target appeals to the middle class and the thrifty hipsters, so they are willing to overlook the fact that it's another community-destroying ( ) bib box store. Wal Mart only serves "those people," so we can eagerly oppose it.

Well, my contention is that people in middle-class areas object to Wal-Mart's attempts to enter their communities not because they serve "those people," but because Wal-Mart's products fail to cater to their tastes. That's why I talked only about differences in product lines, rather than differences in corporate behavior. Even if Target is just as bad an employer as Wal-Mart, we still can't call the two companies equivalent.

I think that, if Wal-Mart successfully introduces inexpensive and fashionable, well-designed clothes, furniture, and home accessories into its product lineup -- and can convince consumers that those goods are there to stay -- then it will encounter less resistance in future attempts at expansion.

Does that clarify my earlier post?