RenHoek said:

and let's not forget the cost of blighted downtown neighborhoods because there are no shops there.

or the cost of people unemployed because a WalMart moved nearby. A WalMart could never fully employ an entire town.

never been there, never spent a dime there.

Blighted downtown neighborhoods existed before Wal-Mart. Malls killed those shops.

Do you pay more taxes because a Wal-Mart is now in town?

Who fully employs an entire town these days? No one.

Are jobs so sacred that they can't be replaced? A clerk making minimum wage, can't find another job? Perhaps at Wal-Mart?

kewlschool said:

uniden said:

i have a close relative that has worked at walmart for years, they get paid pretty well for what they do, and have good medical coverage. and they started in the shoe dept. & worked their way up to management. people love to pick on walmart, but many of the other retail companies are actually much worse than walmart when it comes to medical and full-time employment. if you haven't worked for the company then you're just going off of a lot of lies that you read online that are put out there by the unions.

Wallmart has programs in place to show their employees how to get state aid for food and healthcare. In Washington state the employer with the most people on state aid is Wallmart. Meaning we the tax payers pay for most of their food and healthcare coverage, not to mention some rent money. So, the low cost of goods is not a low cost at all. It's a drain on public resources.

Wallmart considers 28 hours full time employment.

How come Costco can pay their employees living wage and good healthcare benefits and Wallmart can't? Both are successful companies. The only reason they wouldn't is greed, lack of ethics and compassion.

Wallmart has a history of under pricing competition out of business and then raising prices after the competition is gone. It is part of the business strategy-therefore you are not getting the best price always.

Define "best price always?" What does that even look like?

Are you opposed to people shopping online also?

All of you who criticize Wal-Mart, why aren't you equally castigating people who shop online?

Borders and Barnes and Nobles have gone under because people buy books online or on readers.

I don't hear protests about people shopping online and causing brick and mortar stores to close because no one goes there anymore.

People who buy online are obviously self-centered, greedy people who lack ethic and compassion.

excited said:

it would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. i can't see how it could possibly work in a place like india where there is dire poverty

of course, it will rake in a few quid from the less deprived, it would create employment, farmers might benefit but on the whole it would upset the balance BIG time, 4 a start u can't barter at walmart!

why pay 100 rupee for a bag of rice when u can nip round the corner & get the bloke at the market down to 20?! even the socially elite like a bargain, they are rich 4 a reason, culturally they willl not pay over the odds

just an example of their forsight, a few years ago i travelled through, people working on the land, it was primitive stuff, not a tractor in sight. a local person explained that the government spent millions & gave machinery to the farmers but they refused to use as it replaced people, meant less jobs 4 people. so i dunno, i imagine the people will determine the success of the walmarts

Yeah, let's produce less food and do it inefficiently. That will prevent us from maximizing the local human resources to improve our lives. We'll stay just as poor and impoverished as our forefathers.

That's a winning formula . . . . Hard to feel sympathetic.

vainandy said:

Welcome to the world of monopolies and the decline of unique products.

Wal-Mart is not a monopoly and carries thousands of products.

SUPRMAN said:

vainandy said:

Welcome to the world of monopolies and the decline of unique products.

Wal-Mart is not a monopoly and carries thousands of products.

http://www.harpers.org/ar...07/0081115

Some paragraphs from a very eye-opening article from Harper's.....

Breaking the chain:

Popular notions of oligopoly and monopoly tend to focus on the danger that firms, having gained control over a marketplace, will then be able to dictate an unfairly high price, extracting a sort of tax from society as a whole. But what should concern us today even more is a mirror image of monopoly called “monopsony.” Monopsony arises when a firm captures the ability to dictate price to its suppliers, because the suppliers have no real choice other than to deal with that buyer. Not all oligopolists rely on the exercise of monopsony, but a large and growing contingent of today's largest firms are built to do just that. The ultimate danger of monopsony is that it deprives the firms that actually manufacture products from obtaining an adequate return on their investment.

In other words, the ultimate danger of monopsony is that, over time, it tends to destroy the machines and skills on which we all rely. Examples of monopsony can be difficult to pin down, but we are in luck in that today we have one of the best illustrations of monopsony pricing power in economic history: Wal-Mart. There is little need to recount at any length the retailer's power over America's marketplace. For our purposes, a few facts will suffice—that one in every five retail sales in America is recorded at Wal-Mart's cash registers; that the firm's revenue nearly equals that of the next six retailers combined; that for many goods, Wal-Mart accounts for upward of 30 percent of U.S. sales, and plans to more than double its sales within the next five years.

The effects of monopsony also can be difficult to pin down. But again we have easy illustrations ready to hand, in the surprising recent tribulations of two iconic American firms—Coca-Cola and Kraft. Coca-Cola is the quintessential seller of a product based on a “secret formula.” Recently, though, Wal-Mart decided that it did not approve of the artificial sweetener Coca-Cola planned to use in a new line of diet colas. In a response that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, Coca-Cola yielded to the will of an outside firm and designed a second product to meet Wal-Mart's decree. Kraft, meanwhile, is a producer that only four years ago was celebrated by Forbes for “leading the charge” in a “brutal industry.”

Yet since 2004, Kraft has announced plans to shut thirty-nine plants, to let go 13,500 workers, and to eliminate a quarter of its products. Most reports blame soaring prices of energy and raw materials, but in a truly free market Kraft could have pushed at least some of these higher costs on to the consumer. This, however, is no longer possible. Even as costs rise, Wal-Mart and other discounters continue to demand that Kraft lower its prices further. Kraft has found itself with no other choice than to swallow the costs, and hence to tear itself to pieces. The idea that Wal-Mart's power actually subverts the functioning of the free market will seem shocking to some. After all, the firm rose to dominance in the same way that many thousands of other companies before it did—through smart innovation, a unique culture, and a focus on serving the customer.

Even a decade ago, Americans could fairly conclude that, in most respects, Wal-Mart's rise had been good for the nation. But the issue before us is not how Wal-Mart grew to scale but how Wal-Mart uses its power today and will use it tomorrow. The problem is that Wal-Mart, like other monopsonists, does not participate in the market so much as use its power to micromanage the market, carefully coordinating the actions of thousands of firms from a position above the market.

Another basic premise of the free-market system is that the price of a commodity or good carries vital information from actor to actor within an economy—say, that cherries are scarce, or vinyl floor tiles abundant, or the latest iPod includes a new technology. Again, no one can deny that, technically, every firm that supplies Wal-Mart is free to ask whatever price it wants. But again, we must ask whether this holds true in the real world. Every producer knows that Wal-Mart is, as one of its executives told the New York Times, a “no-nonsense negotiator,” which means the firm sets take-it-or-leave-it prices, which as we know from the previous paragraph are far harder to leave than to take. Every so often Wal-Mart will accept a higher price, but then the retailer's managers may opt to punish the offending supplier, perhaps by ratcheting up competition with its own in-house brands.

Price, within the consumer economy, increasingly carries but one bit of information—that Wal-Mart is powerful enough to bend everyone else to its will. Those who would use the word “free” to describe the market over which Wal-Mart presides should first consult with Coca-Cola's product- design department; or with Kraft managers, or Kraft shareholders, or the Kraft employees who lost their jobs. These results were decided not within the scrum of the marketplace but by a single firm.

Free-market utopians have long decried government industrial policy because it puts into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians the power to determine which firms “win” and which “lose.” Wal-Mart picks winners and losers every day, and the losers have no recourse to any court or any political representative anywhere.

More in the article...

If a single business deal illuminates the degree to which Wal-Mart has centralized control over America's consumer economy, it was last year's takeover of Gillette by Procter & Gamble. Gillette would seem one of the last firms likely to find itself unable to protect its pricing power; its 70 percent share of global razor sales gives it some weight at the negotiating table. Yet the Boston-based firm discovered that it could no longer keep its profit margins safely out of the grasp of the Arkansas retailer.

And so was conceived the largest in a long list of buyouts due at least in part to Wal-Mart's power, including Newell's takeover of Rubbermaid, Kellogg's purchase of Keebler, and Kraft's buyout of Nabisco. And of course there is the long list of firms that have ended up dead or in Chapter 11 reorganization at least partly because of their dealings with Wal-Mart. Some are small fry, like Vlasic Foods. Others were once powers, like Pillowtex. Some were beloved brands, like Schwinn. Others were family enterprises, like Lovable Garments.............

To defend Wal-Mart for its low prices is to claim that the most perfect form of economic organization more closely resembles the Soviet Union in 1950 than twentieth-century America. It is to celebrate rationalization to the point of complete irrationality.

noimageatall said:

SUPRMAN said:

Wal-Mart is not a monopoly and carries thousands of products.

http://www.harpers.org/ar...07/0081115

Some paragraphs from a very eye-opening article from Harper's.....

Breaking the chain:

The antitrust case against Wal-Mart

Popular notions of oligopoly and monopoly tend to focus on the danger that firms, having gained control over a marketplace, will then be able to dictate an unfairly high price, extracting a sort of tax from society as a whole. But what should concern us today even more is a mirror image of monopoly called “monopsony.” Monopsony arises when a firm captures the ability to dictate price to its suppliers, because the suppliers have no real choice other than to deal with that buyer. Not all oligopolists rely on the exercise of monopsony, but a large and growing contingent of today's largest firms are built to do just that. The ultimate danger of monopsony is that it deprives the firms that actually manufacture products from obtaining an adequate return on their investment.

{You did not call it a monopsony, but a monopoly. As a retailer, Wal-Marty does not have a monopoly. I don't see the problem with Wal-Mart keeping their prices low by squeezing their suppliers. They aren't out to put suppliers out of business are they? That defeats the purpose of being a retailer. Obviously those savings go to consumers which is what makes Wal-Mart so big. People vote with their feet and choose to do business there. I see no problem there. Why can't someone bring consumers lower prices?}

In other words, the ultimate danger of monopsony is that, over time, it tends to destroy the machines and skills on which we all rely. Examples of monopsony can be difficult to pin down, but we are in luck in that today we have one of the best illustrations of monopsony pricing power in economic history: Wal-Mart. There is little need to recount at any length the retailer's power over America's marketplace. For our purposes, a few facts will suffice—that one in every five retail sales in America is recorded at Wal-Mart's cash registers; that the firm's revenue nearly equals that of the next six retailers combined; that for many goods, Wal-Mart accounts for upward of 30 percent of U.S. sales, and plans to more than double its sales within the next five years

The effects of monopsony also can be difficult to pin down. But again we have easy illustrations ready to hand, in the surprising recent tribulations of two iconic American firms—Coca-Cola and Kraft. Coca-Cola is the quintessential seller of a product based on a “secret formula.” Recently, though, Wal-Mart decided that it did not approve of the artificial sweetener Coca-Cola planned to use in a new line of diet colas. In a response that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago, Coca-Cola yielded to the will of an outside firm and designed a second product to meet Wal-Mart's decree. Kraft, meanwhile, is a producer that only four years ago was celebrated by Forbes for “leading the charge” in a “brutal industry.”

Yet since 2004, Kraft has announced plans to shut thirty-nine plants, to let go 13,500 workers, and to eliminate a quarter of its products. Most reports blame soaring prices of energy and raw materials, but in a truly free market Kraft could have pushed at least some of these higher costs on to the consumer. This, however, is no longer possible. Even as costs rise, Wal-Mart and other discounters continue to demand that Kraft lower its prices further. Kraft has found itself with no other choice than to swallow the costs, and hence to tear itself to pieces. The idea that Wal-Mart's power actually subverts the functioning of the free market will seem shocking to some. After all, the firm rose to dominance in the same way that many thousands of other companies before it did—through smart innovation, a unique culture, and a focus on serving the customer.

{ Kraft and Coca-Cola do not 'have' to do business with Wal-Mart. Is Wal-Mart the only retailer selling dairy and snack products? The only outlet selling soft drinks? Hardly. They deal with Wal-mart for the high volume sales. That's Kraft's management's problem, not Wal-Mart's. If Kraft's management weren't chasing quarterly numbers they wouldn't be trying to dump as much of their product through Wal-Mart to book sales. Kraft has no pull? Really? Do you think people wouldn't notice Wal-Mart had no Kraft products? If Kraft explained why, do you think they would have consumer support and that those consumers would buy Kraft products at their local supermarket? This author is bending over backwards with mirrors trying to make a case.}

Even a decade ago, Americans could fairly conclude that, in most respects, Wal-Mart's rise had been good for the nation. But the issue before us is not how Wal-Mart grew to scale but how Wal-Mart uses its power today and will use it tomorrow. The problem is that Wal-Mart, like other monopsonists, does not participate in the market so much as use its power to micromanage the market, carefully coordinating the actions of thousands of firms from a position above the market.

Another basic premise of the free-market system is that the price of a commodity or good carries vital information from actor to actor within an economy—say, that cherries are scarce, or vinyl floor tiles abundant, or the latest iPod includes a new technology. Again, no one can deny that, technically, every firm that supplies Wal-Mart is free to ask whatever price it wants. But again, we must ask whether this holds true in the real world. Every producer knows that Wal-Mart is, as one of its executives told the New York Times, a “no-nonsense negotiator,” which means the firm sets take-it-or-leave-it prices, which as we know from the previous paragraph are far harder to leave than to take. Every so often Wal-Mart will accept a higher price, but then the retailer's managers may opt to punish the offending supplier, perhaps by ratcheting up competition with its own in-house brands.

Price, within the consumer economy, increasingly carries but one bit of information—that Wal-Mart is powerful enough to bend everyone else to its will. Those who would use the word “free” to describe the market over which Wal-Mart presides should first consult with Coca-Cola's product- design department; or with Kraft managers, or Kraft shareholders, or the Kraft employees who lost their jobs. These results were decided not within the scrum of the marketplace but by a single firm.

Free-market utopians have long decried government industrial policy because it puts into the hands of bureaucrats and politicians the power to determine which firms “win” and which “lose.” Wal-Mart picks winners and losers every day, and the losers have no recourse to any court or any political representative anywhere.

More in the article...

If a single business deal illuminates the degree to which Wal-Mart has centralized control over America's consumer economy, it was last year's takeover of Gillette by Procter & Gamble. Gillette would seem one of the last firms likely to find itself unable to protect its pricing power; its 70 percent share of global razor sales gives it some weight at the negotiating table. Yet the Boston-based firm discovered that it could no longer keep its profit margins safely out of the grasp of the Arkansas retailer.

And so was conceived the largest in a long list of buyouts due at least in part to Wal-Mart's power, including Newell's takeover of Rubbermaid, Kellogg's purchase of Keebler, and Kraft's buyout of Nabisco. And of course there is the long list of firms that have ended up dead or in Chapter 11 reorganization at least partly because of their dealings with Wal-Mart. Some are small fry, like Vlasic Foods. Others were once powers, like Pillowtex. Some were beloved brands, like Schwinn. Others were family enterprises, like Lovable Garments.............

To defend Wal-Mart for its low prices is to claim that the most perfect form of economic organization more closely resembles the Soviet Union in 1950 than twentieth-century America. It is to celebrate rationalization to the point of complete irrationality.

{Obviously a hit piece, against a popular pinata but if they all settled for smaller sales, they could choose to bypass Wal-Mart and stick with other distribution channels. These are negotiated contracts are they not? The firm accepts a lower margin, hoping to make up the difference with increased sales. They made their bed, but want pity now that they have to lie in it.}

SUPRMAN said:

noimageatall said:

http://www.harpers.org/ar...07/0081115

Some paragraphs from a very eye-opening article from Harper's.....

Breaking the chain:

The antitrust case against Wal-Mart

Obviously a hit piece, against a popular pinata but if they all settled for smaller sales, they could choose to bypass Wal-Mart and stick with other distribution channels. These are negotiated contracts are they not? The firm accepts a lower margin, hoping to make up the difference with increased sales. They made their bed, but want pity now that they have to lie in it.

There are many more 'hit pieces' where this came from. An I'm no expert, but my guess is that those who settled for smaller sales are the ones that went bankrupt.

Such blatantly enforced collusion has not gone entirely unnoticed in Washington. Toward the end of its time in office, even the merger-happy Clinton Administration allowed the Federal Trade Commission to launch an investigation of these practices, and an FTC report in early 2001 identified four ways that Category Management may violate even the remarkably loose antitrust guidelines of the last generation. All four of these violations cut right to the core of the free-market system. As the FTC put it, a category captain might “(1) learn confidential information about rivals' plans; (2) hinder the expansion of rivals, (3) promote collusion among retailers; or (4) facilitate collusion among manufacturers.” In Wal-Mart's world, all four violations are present to at least some extent.

[Edited 9/22/12 22:44pm]

SUPRMAN said:

kewlschool said:

Wallmart has programs in place to show their employees how to get state aid for food and healthcare. In Washington state the employer with the most people on state aid is Wallmart. Meaning we the tax payers pay for most of their food and healthcare coverage, not to mention some rent money. So, the low cost of goods is not a low cost at all. It's a drain on public resources.

Wallmart considers 28 hours full time employment.

How come Costco can pay their employees living wage and good healthcare benefits and Wallmart can't? Both are successful companies. The only reason they wouldn't is greed, lack of ethics and compassion.

Wallmart has a history of under pricing competition out of business and then raising prices after the competition is gone. It is part of the business strategy-therefore you are not getting the best price always.

Define "best price always?" What does that even look like?

Are you opposed to people shopping online also?

All of you who criticize Wal-Mart, why aren't you equally castigating people who shop online?

Borders and Barnes and Nobles have gone under because people buy books online or on readers.

I don't hear protests about people shopping online and causing brick and mortar stores to close because no one goes there anymore.

People who buy online are obviously self-centered, greedy people who lack ethic and compassion.

Meaning that after you got rid of the competition you can raise the prices up (This happens in smaller towns.) So, the promise of low prices is not always the truth in the marketing ploy.

So, locally they can be a monopoly-if there is no other option. (Besides the web.)

So, what's your take on Walmart's programs instructing employees how to get state aid and the fact that we as tax payers pay for their employees families? (It's an obvious business strategy that enables Walmart to under cut employees wages and benefits to undermine their competition who don't do that, especially in small towns.) Again, this is a big part of ethics.

kewlschool said:

SUPRMAN said:

Define "best price always?" What does that even look like?

Are you opposed to people shopping online also?

All of you who criticize Wal-Mart, why aren't you equally castigating people who shop online?

Borders and Barnes and Nobles have gone under because people buy books online or on readers.

I don't hear protests about people shopping online and causing brick and mortar stores to close because no one goes there anymore.

People who buy online are obviously self-centered, greedy people who lack ethic and compassion.

Meaning that after you got rid of the competition you can raise the prices up (This happens in smaller towns.) So, the promise of low prices is not always the truth in the marketing ploy.

So, locally they can be a monopoly-if there is no other option. (Besides the web.)

So, what's your take on Walmart's programs instructing employees how to get state aid and the fact that we as tax payers pay for their employees families? (It's an obvious business strategy that enables Walmart to under cut employees wages and benefits to undermine their competition who don't do that, especially in small towns.) Again, this is a big part of ethics.

What makes Wal-Mart's instructions unethical?

You imply they have an obligation to provide all their workers with a defined standard of living that excludes government aid. Why?

I don't see an ethics question, merely an economic one. There is nothing unethical about Wal-Mart providing counseling for employees to obtain benefits they qualify for.

If you feel ALL employers are ethically obligated to provide a standard of living simply because they employ people, why do you feel it is a question of ethics?

SUPRMAN said:

kewlschool said:

Meaning that after you got rid of the competition you can raise the prices up (This happens in smaller towns.) So, the promise of low prices is not always the truth in the marketing ploy.

So, locally they can be a monopoly-if there is no other option. (Besides the web.)

So, what's your take on Walmart's programs instructing employees how to get state aid and the fact that we as tax payers pay for their employees families? (It's an obvious business strategy that enables Walmart to under cut employees wages and benefits to undermine their competition who don't do that, especially in small towns.) Again, this is a big part of ethics.

What makes Wal-Mart's instructions unethical?

You imply they have an obligation to provide all their workers with a defined standard of living that excludes government aid. Why?

I don't see an ethics question, merely an economic one. There is nothing unethical about Wal-Mart providing counseling for employees to obtain benefits they qualify for.

If you feel ALL employers are ethically obligated to provide a standard of living simply because they employ people, why do you feel it is a question of ethics?

The why is clear:

It's unethical because they have more money than they could burn (see forbes list) and they are purposeful shifting a large part of employee compensation directly to the tax payers.

Doesn't that perturb you in the least?

The state aid system was set up to help individuals in need-not for companies to use as a tax break slash money making scheme. It's abuse of the government, the tax payers and highly unethical.

kewlschool said:

SUPRMAN said:

What makes Wal-Mart's instructions unethical?

You imply they have an obligation to provide all their workers with a defined standard of living that excludes government aid. Why?

I don't see an ethics question, merely an economic one. There is nothing unethical about Wal-Mart providing counseling for employees to obtain benefits they qualify for.

If you feel ALL employers are ethically obligated to provide a standard of living simply because they employ people, why do you feel it is a question of ethics?

The why is clear:

It's unethical because they have more money than they could burn (see forbes list) and they are purposeful shifting a large part of employee compensation directly to the tax payers.

Doesn't that perturb you in the least?

The state aid system was set up to help individuals in need-not for companies to use as a tax break slash money making scheme. It's abuse of the government, the tax payers and highly unethical.

It is not unethical. What makes it unethical?

If the state provided nothing, they would likely have to offer higher wages.

But they are playing by the rules that exist. That is not unethical.

The state aid system is being used to help individuals. That those individuals are employed and able to receive aid is the state aid system's problem, not Wal-Marts.

Would you also say it is unethical for parents to assist their working offspring with buying a house?

It is not an abuse of the government. The government gets to set the rules. If the government has a problem with Wal-Mart's conduct, they can change the rules any time. Hasn't happened.

GM and Chrysler received full scale bailouts to keep them in business and employing workers.

You should also see that as unethical too for the same reasons.

noimageatall said:

Hear, hear!!

noimageatall said:

Nice sentiment, but show that to be the case.

SUPRMAN said:

noimageatall said:

Nice sentiment, but show that to be the case.

Seriously?

http://campusprogress.org...ou-to-know

Things Wal-Mart Doesn't Want You To Know

Find out the true costs behind those “everyday low prices.”

By Jared Cram, Temple University

Wal-Mart regularly falls below industry standards for employee pay.

In 2001, the average pay of a Wal-Mart worker was $8.23 per hour, more than two dollars less per hour than the average supermarket employee wage of $10.35 per hour.

Furthermore, Wal-Mart associates only average 32 hours a week, causing many employees to be classified as “part-time,” thus restricting their access to health care and other benefits exclusively earmarked for full-timers. In fact, Wal-Mart wages are so low that the average Wal-Mart worker’s annual salary in 2001 was almost $1,000 below the federal poverty line of $14,630 for a family of three.

Wal-Mart sometimes doesn’t even pay its low wages at all.

Poverty level wages are bad enough. But Wal-Mart apparently feels that not paying wages at all is even better for its bottom line. As of December 2002, 39 class action lawsuits in 30 states were filed against Wal-Mart claiming tens of millions of dollars in back pay owed to hundreds of thousands employees. These lawsuits included instances of Wal-Mart forcing employees to work through breaks, forcing employees to work off the clock, and even deleting hours from employees’ time sheets without their knowledge. According to a former Wal-Mart manager in Alabama and Mississippi, Wal-Mart’s central office threatened to write up managers who didn’t reduce labor costs and this led to managers leaning on assistant managers to falsify time sheets and force employees to work without pay.

Wal-Mart regularly drains public coffers at all levels of government.

The government subsidization of health care for Wal-Mart employees is just the tip of the iceberg. Wal-Mart routinely uses taxpayer money to finance its never-ending corporate growth. A report commissioned by the House Committee on Education and Welfare estimates that a two hundred person Wal-Mart store costs federal taxpayers approximately $420,750 a year, or $2,103 per employee. These costs include:

-$36,000 a year for free and reduced cost school lunches,

-$42,000 for Section 8 housing assistance,

-$125,000 for low-income family tax credits and deductions,

-$100,000 for additional Title I expenses,

-$108,000 for state children’s health insurance expenses, and

-$9,750 for low income energy assistance

Wal-Mart makes a habit of flouting immigration laws and regulations.

As Wal-Mart continues its race to the bottom in worker compensation, Wal-Mart routinely seeks out the most vulnerable and powerless workers in the American economy: undocumented immigrant workers. On October 23, 2003, federal agents raided 61 stores in 21 states leading to the arrest of 250 janitors who were undocumented workers. Similar raids in 1998 and 2001 led to the arrest of an additional 102 undocumented Wal-Mart employees.

In addition, the 2003 raid led to a grand jury being convened to consider federal labor racketeering charges against Wal-Mart executives. These charges were bolstered by wiretapped conversations between Wal-Mart executives and labor contractors that proved Wal-Mart knew its employees were undocumented immigrants.

Wal-Mart has played a major role in the outsourcing of American jobs overseas.

Although Wal-Mart has always tried to pass itself off as a company deeply concerned with the well-being of everyday American workers, actions speak louder than words. No longer content to follow its old motto of “Buy American,” Wal-Mart now imports over 50 percent of its merchandise from overseas.

In 2003 alone, Wal-Mart purchased one-eighth of all Chinese imports to the United States. And by insisting on the low prices that only sweatshop labor can provide, Wal-Mart has used its tremendous power in the marketplace to bully American firms into moving their production facilities overseas. And once overseas, these firms are required to keep prices low at all costs to please Wal-Mart; even if it requires forcing employees to work in sweatshop conditions for little pay producing products that the factories lose money on.

By Silvio Rodrigues

August 7, 2007

Around 19,000 teenagers, mostly grocery baggers, are working for free at Wal-Mart’s 62 Superama markets in Mexico.

The stores encourage customers to tip their "volunteers"—a designation used to circumvent minimum wage requirements.

"In economic terms, Wal-Mart does have the capability to pay the minimum wage, and this represents an injustice," said Federal District Labor Secretary Benito Mirón Lince.

Wal-Mart’s Mexican subsidiary is making more money than ever before, yet it insists that grocery baggers are not workers and are not entitled to the minimum wage of less than $5 a day. In a system that demands ever-greater corporate profits, there is no such thing as too much exploitation.

Some of these practices have been stopped not because of Walmart's 'social' conscience but from all the lawsuits. Being knowledgeable about the level of social responsibility of the companies that you apply to, work for, and patronize is the first step to supporting a more socially responsible world...

[Edited 10/6/12 12:29pm]

noimageatall said:

SUPRMAN said:

By Silvio Rodrigues

August 7, 2007

Around 19,000 teenagers, mostly grocery baggers, are working for free at Wal-Mart’s 62 Superama markets in Mexico.

The stores encourage customers to tip their "volunteers"—a designation used to circumvent minimum wage requirements.

"In economic terms, Wal-Mart does have the capability to pay the minimum wage, and this represents an injustice," said Federal District Labor Secretary Benito Mirón Lince.

Wal-Mart’s Mexican subsidiary is making more money than ever before, yet it insists that grocery baggers are not workers and are not entitled to the minimum wage of less than $5 a day. In a system that demands ever-greater corporate profits, there is no such thing as too much exploitation.

Some of these practices have been stopped not because of Walmart's 'social' conscience but from all the lawsuits. Being knowledgeable about the level of social responsibility of the companies that you apply to, work for, and patronize is the first step to supporting a more socially responsible world...

[Edited 10/6/12 12:29pm]

Posting an article from 2003 is being more knowledgeable? Please.

2007 isn't much better.

So nothing has changed since? Doubtful.

What social responsibility do companies have? Only that which is imposed from outside.

Why not stop doing business with corporations altogether? Then we'd know we were doing the right thing. Right?

I don't believe companies are inherently good or evil. They are composed of people who make decisions that have consequences.

As human beings, we don't care for others anyway, so being removed from people certainly leads to people caring less about the impact of their decision that conflict with their personal interests.

Don't blame companies for what is simply human behavior. We do it to each other, the faceless company is just a proxy so we don't have to look in the mirror.

[Edited 10/6/12 14:36pm]

SUPRMAN said:

noimageatall said:

Posting an article from 2003 is being more knowledgeable? Please.

2007 isn't much better.

So nothing has changed since? Doubtful.

What social responsibility do companies have? Only that which is imposed from outside.

Why not stop doing business with corporations altogether? Then we'd know we were doing the right thing. Right?

I don't believe companies are inherently good or evil. They are composed of people who make decisions that have consequences.

As human beings, we don't care for others anyway, so being removed from people certainly leads to people caring less about the impact of their decision that conflict with their personal interests.

Don't blame companies for what is simply human behavior. We do it to each other, the faceless company is just a proxy so we don't have to look in the mirror.

[Edited 10/6/12 14:36pm]

wow... Speak for yourself. I don't believe that you don't understand that but for the humans who DO care what happens to other humans, Walmart's (and other corporations) dehumanizing and illegal policies would still be in place (and some of them still are). I for one am not only concerned about Americans but of those in other countries because I live in this world. But that's just me...

Exploitation of Workers

Last September, the International Labor Rights Fund filed a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for violating workers’ rights in foreign countries, alleging that Wal-Mart denied minimum wage, required overtime, and punished union activity. In some cases, workers alleged they were beaten by supervisors. If certified, 100,000 to 500,000 workers could be included. Specifically, the suit alleged that one Bangladesh worker worked seven days a week from 7:45 a.m to 10:00 p.m. without a day off in six months.

So sorry the articles are too old for you...there are many more from THIS year.

http://www.huffingtonpost...86384.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/0...index.html

http://www.washingtonpost...story.html

http://www.workplacefairn...l-mart.php

noimageatall said:

SUPRMAN said:

wow... Speak for yourself. I don't believe that you don't understand that but for the humans who DO care what happens to other humans, Walmart's (and other corporations) dehumanizing and illegal policies would still be in place (and some of them still are). I for one am not only concerned about Americans but of those in other countries because I live in this world. But that's just me...

Exploitation of Workers

Last September, the International Labor Rights Fund filed a class-action lawsuit against Wal-Mart for violating workers’ rights in foreign countries, alleging that Wal-Mart denied minimum wage, required overtime, and punished union activity. In some cases, workers alleged they were beaten by supervisors. If certified, 100,000 to 500,000 workers could be included. Specifically, the suit alleged that one Bangladesh worker worked seven days a week from 7:45 a.m to 10:00 p.m. without a day off in six months.

So sorry the articles are too old for you...there are many more from THIS year.

http://www.huffingtonpost...86384.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/0...index.html

http://www.washingtonpost...story.html

http://www.workplacefairn...l-mart.php

If we cared about each other it wouldn't be an issue now would it?

Words of wisdom...

noimageatall said:

Words of wisdom...

Tell me you don't believe that people exploiting people for personal profit at the expense of the lives of others began with corporations?!!!!

If she is Indian, she needs to work at home before casting eyes at U.S. issues.

Oh but I guess it's just AMERICAN corporations that are evil . . . I'm sure Chinese multinationals aren't out for profit . . . .

SUPRMAN said:

noimageatall said:

Words of wisdom...

Tell me you don't believe that people exploiting people for personal profit at the expense of the lives of others began with corporations?!!!!

If she is Indian, she needs to work at home before casting eyes at U.S. issues.

Oh but I guess it's just AMERICAN corporations that are evil . . . I'm sure Chinese multinationals aren't out for profit . . . .

Your comments are completely ridiculous...Sometimes I get confused and can't remember if I'm speaking to onlyNdausa or you.

I think Mr. Rogers sums up how I feel...I'm done now.

noimageatall said:

SUPRMAN said:

Tell me you don't believe that people exploiting people for personal profit at the expense of the lives of others began with corporations?!!!!

If she is Indian, she needs to work at home before casting eyes at U.S. issues.

Oh but I guess it's just AMERICAN corporations that are evil . . . I'm sure Chinese multinationals aren't out for profit . . . .

Your comments are completely ridiculous...Sometimes I get confused and can't remember if I'm speaking to onlyNdausa or you.

I think Mr. Rogers sums up how I feel...I'm done now.

I agree with Mr. Rogers.

Please explain how my comments are 'completely ridiculous.'

Human exploitation of human beings has occurred throughout our history. It's how we treat each other. It's nice to imagine otherwise, but unless you admit it is a human issue blaming corporations is merely a diversion from looking in the mirror at the problem.

Wlamart appears to be controlled by a bunch of greedy fucks. That's my contention.

The sooner they fail, the better for humanity!

noimageatall said:

SUPRMAN said:

Tell me you don't believe that people exploiting people for personal profit at the expense of the lives of others began with corporations?!!!!

If she is Indian, she needs to work at home before casting eyes at U.S. issues.

Oh but I guess it's just AMERICAN corporations that are evil . . . I'm sure Chinese multinationals aren't out for profit . . . .

Your comments are completely ridiculous...Sometimes I get confused and can't remember if I'm speaking to onlyNdausa or you.

I think Mr. Rogers sums up how I feel...I'm done now.

your posts make good sense to people who do not deliberately and constantly react 'contrarily' to each and every idea they come across on the internet.

XxAxX said:

noimageatall said:

Your comments are completely ridiculous...Sometimes I get confused and can't remember if I'm speaking to onlyNdausa or you.

I think Mr. Rogers sums up how I feel...I'm done now.

your posts make good sense to people who do not deliberately and constantly react 'contrarily' to each and every idea they come across on the internet.

It's a conspiracy!

(Because if it's posted in Prince.Org it's gonna be the gospel truth. No need to fact check. Just believe. No matter how unreasonable or unscientific or illogical. Simply believe. It is posted in the org.)

[Edited 10/9/12 0:48am]