Still the richest on earth!
-
Rocky Moore wrote: I guess there is plenty of money in destroying local economies Exactly how did Wal-Mart destroy local economies? They offer thousands of jobs and decent prices to stretch a buck further. You consider that bad? Well, maybe if you're K-Mart. Actually, if you ever listened to Sam Walton before he passed away, it's not hard to see why people liked going there. He was a VERY customer oriented person. Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Exactly how did Wal-Mart destroy local economies? I'm guessing that comment was talking about the harm it does to independent, locally-owned businesses. However, one of the problems with Walmart is that they are so powerful they have enormous control over their suppliers. They literally tell them (the manufacturers) how much they will pay for an item. In most cases, businesses that use American workers can't compete because Walmart will only buy at the absolute lowest prices. The end result is that most manufacturers have to move their factories overseas in order to provide Walmart with the prices they want - either that or they lose the chance to sell through Walmart. In that sense, Walmart is bad for two reasons: they have so much power over manufacturers that they leverage most of the profits for themselves (leaving their suppliers with a bare minimum of profit), and they push the manufacturers so hard on prices that developed countries end up losing jobs to third-world countries that pay bare-minimum wages. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7141138/ Gates is still in the lead. What surprised me was the Walton family and their huge Wal-Mart value coming in starting at 10th. That is five people $18 billion or more each. Combined, they are richer than Gates x 2! I guess there is plenty of money in destroying local economies.. Rocky <>< Idea / Invention: Business Backup Solution..[^]
I agree totally. I haven't set foot in a walmart in over ten years. Right after I saw every little shop in a small town near me shut down not long after a walmart opened in the area. I read an interesting statistic the other day : the annual sales for walmart is bigger than the entire semiconductor industry, including HP, Intel, and IBM. I found that to be astonishing. A bit disgusting too actually. Sorry, this is probably soapbox material but my kid sis agrees : she hates 'em too.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Exactly how did Wal-Mart destroy local economies? I'm guessing that comment was talking about the harm it does to independent, locally-owned businesses. However, one of the problems with Walmart is that they are so powerful they have enormous control over their suppliers. They literally tell them (the manufacturers) how much they will pay for an item. In most cases, businesses that use American workers can't compete because Walmart will only buy at the absolute lowest prices. The end result is that most manufacturers have to move their factories overseas in order to provide Walmart with the prices they want - either that or they lose the chance to sell through Walmart. In that sense, Walmart is bad for two reasons: they have so much power over manufacturers that they leverage most of the profits for themselves (leaving their suppliers with a bare minimum of profit), and they push the manufacturers so hard on prices that developed countries end up losing jobs to third-world countries that pay bare-minimum wages. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Yep! They move in and all the locals cannot begin to compete with their prices. Eventually, those locals go out of business and the local communities turn into fast food and wal-mart since nothing else can survive. It is not Wal-Mart's fault actually, it is the dumb consumer who feels they need to get the absolute lowest price regardless of what it does the local economy. This is nothing new and has occured for quite some time, however, I do not recall any time in history that it has happened on the scale that Wal-Mart brings. But, you know, Greed is driving most markets and the stupid people who fall for the tricks. Just look in this thread and others like it where people try to defend "poor" Wal-Mart.... Rocky <>< Idea / Invention: Business Backup Solution..[^]
-
I think Wal-Mart did take a turn for the worse after Sam Walton died, but this guy's arguments don't hold water for many reasons. Wal-Mart does put back into the ecomony (Clickety[^] and Clickety[^]). Target is a better example of not giving back. Also, some of the details this guy mentions are on the manager level and not the company level, per sé. Jeremy Falcon
Yeah, there really give a lot back.. When the top five owners are worth more than $18 billion each, that is really giving a lot back.... That $18+ billion each came out of the pockets of a lot of small businesses they destroyed. Rocky <>< Idea / Invention: Business Backup Solution..[^]
-
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7141138/ Gates is still in the lead. What surprised me was the Walton family and their huge Wal-Mart value coming in starting at 10th. That is five people $18 billion or more each. Combined, they are richer than Gates x 2! I guess there is plenty of money in destroying local economies.. Rocky <>< Idea / Invention: Business Backup Solution..[^]
Rocky Moore wrote: What surprised me was the Walton family and their huge Wal-Mart value coming in starting at 10th. that's not suprising. remember that the usa isn't the world. and wal-mart is only in america. it sure ain't in south africa. microsoft on the other hand is a monopoly the whole world over. -- Raoul Snyman Saturn Laboratories e-mail: raoul.snyman@saturnlaboratories.co.za web: http://www.saturnlaboratories.co.za/ blog: http://blog.saturnlaboratories.co.za/ linux user: #333298
-
Rocky Moore wrote: What surprised me was the Walton family and their huge Wal-Mart value coming in starting at 10th. that's not suprising. remember that the usa isn't the world. and wal-mart is only in america. it sure ain't in south africa. microsoft on the other hand is a monopoly the whole world over. -- Raoul Snyman Saturn Laboratories e-mail: raoul.snyman@saturnlaboratories.co.za web: http://www.saturnlaboratories.co.za/ blog: http://blog.saturnlaboratories.co.za/ linux user: #333298
raouls wrote: and wal-mart is only in america. They're in the UK too. They took over Asda, one of the big four supermarket chains, a few years ago. The largest is still Tesco, though. All the large supermarkets do exactly the same thing - extract as much profit as possible for themselves, drive down the price paid for goods as far as possible, specify exactly how an item should appear - and homogenise tastes. Stability. What an interesting concept. -- Chris Maunder
-
Yep! They move in and all the locals cannot begin to compete with their prices. Eventually, those locals go out of business and the local communities turn into fast food and wal-mart since nothing else can survive. It is not Wal-Mart's fault actually, it is the dumb consumer who feels they need to get the absolute lowest price regardless of what it does the local economy. This is nothing new and has occured for quite some time, however, I do not recall any time in history that it has happened on the scale that Wal-Mart brings. But, you know, Greed is driving most markets and the stupid people who fall for the tricks. Just look in this thread and others like it where people try to defend "poor" Wal-Mart.... Rocky <>< Idea / Invention: Business Backup Solution..[^]
Rocky Moore wrote: It is not Wal-Mart's fault actually, it is the dumb consumer who feels they need to get the absolute lowest price That has always bugged me. No one seems to care for community or good, reliable service. It's all money, money, money. I wonder how many Wallmart shoppers can name their neighbours, etc? It's a horrible disease but it's not Wallmarts choice it's those dumb fucking consumers always chasing the extra penny. I cried when I a friend over here said he was driving up to a superstore in London (that's about 300 miles) because they had iPods going cheaper than locally. I tried to explain that the cost in time and fuel - heck even the deprication of his car - would offset it but he wasn't listening to any of it. Astounding! :sigh:
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrDie Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen
-
Yeah, there really give a lot back.. When the top five owners are worth more than $18 billion each, that is really giving a lot back.... That $18+ billion each came out of the pockets of a lot of small businesses they destroyed. Rocky <>< Idea / Invention: Business Backup Solution..[^]
That's like saying Bill Gates doesn't give a lot back because he's rich and ruined small companies. That's a bogus argument for many reasons. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Exactly how did Wal-Mart destroy local economies? I'm guessing that comment was talking about the harm it does to independent, locally-owned businesses. However, one of the problems with Walmart is that they are so powerful they have enormous control over their suppliers. They literally tell them (the manufacturers) how much they will pay for an item. In most cases, businesses that use American workers can't compete because Walmart will only buy at the absolute lowest prices. The end result is that most manufacturers have to move their factories overseas in order to provide Walmart with the prices they want - either that or they lose the chance to sell through Walmart. In that sense, Walmart is bad for two reasons: they have so much power over manufacturers that they leverage most of the profits for themselves (leaving their suppliers with a bare minimum of profit), and they push the manufacturers so hard on prices that developed countries end up losing jobs to third-world countries that pay bare-minimum wages. ----------------------------------------------------- Empires Of Steel[^]
Brit wrote: They literally tell them (the manufacturers) how much they will pay for an item. That's no different than contract bidding. Brit wrote: developed countries end up losing jobs to third-world countries that pay bare-minimum wages. That's no different than outsourcing. If you (generalizing) believe it's ok to outsource, then why is it bad to do this? Jeremy Falcon
-
Rocky Moore wrote: It is not Wal-Mart's fault actually, it is the dumb consumer who feels they need to get the absolute lowest price That has always bugged me. No one seems to care for community or good, reliable service. It's all money, money, money. I wonder how many Wallmart shoppers can name their neighbours, etc? It's a horrible disease but it's not Wallmarts choice it's those dumb fucking consumers always chasing the extra penny. I cried when I a friend over here said he was driving up to a superstore in London (that's about 300 miles) because they had iPods going cheaper than locally. I tried to explain that the cost in time and fuel - heck even the deprication of his car - would offset it but he wasn't listening to any of it. Astounding! :sigh:
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrDie Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen
David Wulff wrote: It's a horrible disease but it's not Wallmarts choice it's those dumb f***ing consumers always chasing the extra penny. You judge too quickly. It's human nature, people always want what they *think* they can't have. In the case of the poor (and a few extras) that is money. Saving money is not dumb for them, and I'm willing to bet if you were poor it wouldn't be dumb for you. Most small business owners just plain don't know what they are doing (if they did, they'd be bigger). Wal-Mart knew from the get-go how people work, and they'd want cheaper prices. Jeremy Falcon
-
Rocky Moore wrote: It is not Wal-Mart's fault actually, it is the dumb consumer who feels they need to get the absolute lowest price That has always bugged me. No one seems to care for community or good, reliable service. It's all money, money, money. I wonder how many Wallmart shoppers can name their neighbours, etc? It's a horrible disease but it's not Wallmarts choice it's those dumb fucking consumers always chasing the extra penny. I cried when I a friend over here said he was driving up to a superstore in London (that's about 300 miles) because they had iPods going cheaper than locally. I tried to explain that the cost in time and fuel - heck even the deprication of his car - would offset it but he wasn't listening to any of it. Astounding! :sigh:
Ðavid Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Audioscrobbler :: flikrDie Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen
And remember, to those that count pennies, money is mor valuable than time. Put yourself in their shoes and open your eyes. Jeremy Falcon
-
Rocky Moore wrote: What surprised me was the Walton family and their huge Wal-Mart value coming in starting at 10th. that's not suprising. remember that the usa isn't the world. and wal-mart is only in america. it sure ain't in south africa. microsoft on the other hand is a monopoly the whole world over. -- Raoul Snyman Saturn Laboratories e-mail: raoul.snyman@saturnlaboratories.co.za web: http://www.saturnlaboratories.co.za/ blog: http://blog.saturnlaboratories.co.za/ linux user: #333298
But they have only begun their world domination ;) microsoft on the other hand is a monopoly the whole world over. That is a joke to me. I guess Apply and all *inxes should just close their doors as big old Microsoft have driven them out of business. Opps, could it mean that other OS's can still survive? Monopoly and Majority of market share are two different things. If Microsoft took away all programming tools on the planet so that no other person could write an OS or make it so that no one else could use a different OS, then yes, they would be a monopoly, but just because the stupid government considers them to be one does not make them it so. Like wise Wal-Mart is not a Monopoly, they just have large market share. Of course, they have the ability to sell products for far less than than other businesses can even buy them.. Rocky <>< Idea / Invention: Business Backup Solution..[^]
-
Brit wrote: They literally tell them (the manufacturers) how much they will pay for an item. That's no different than contract bidding. Brit wrote: developed countries end up losing jobs to third-world countries that pay bare-minimum wages. That's no different than outsourcing. If you (generalizing) believe it's ok to outsource, then why is it bad to do this? Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote: They literally tell them (the manufacturers) how much they will pay for an item. That's no different than contract bidding. When you have as much power as Walmart, you can push your suppliers further. I remember reading one article where the supplier said that Walmart came to them and told them how much they would pay for item X. If they didn't like it, they would stop buying all the company's products. Walmart seems to make a habit of continually reducing the amount they'll pay for a product. For example, they'll say, we paid X dollars for this item last year. We want it for 5% less this year. Walmart does run a very efficient business. I just wish they'd stop pushing their suppliers to the brink of banruptcy in order to get wealthy (where do you think that $100+ billion in Walmart family wealth came from?) I understand they're pretty heavy handed in preventing unions from forming, thus allowing them to pay their employees low wages. I can't say I'm a huge fan of unions, but it seems a bit heavy handed in light of their 100 billion dollar fortune. Remember: in any bargaining situation, there are power structures in place which strengthen or weaken your bargaining position. Unions are a way to get bargaining power over management. Walmart, with it's 4000+ stores has enormous amounts of power over it's suppliers. The suppliers are divided and Walmart plays them against each other. This is not like "contract bidding" because you're ignoring the existence of the power structures which allows Walmart to grab the best of every deal. Jeremy Falcon wrote: That's no different than outsourcing. If you (generalizing) believe it's ok to outsource, then why is it bad to do this? They increase the pressure to outsource. Outsourcing is not all bad or all good. Some business people like to focus on the fact that people are getting lower prices. Of course, the other side of the equation is that you may end up with fewer jobs or worse-paying jobs. If the items you buy cost 10% less, but you lose your job or get a lower-paying job, you can end up with less buying power. One of my main concerns with outsourcing is that we (Americans) are selling out our position in the world as technological leaders. So, I not someone who says, "it's ok to outsource" or "it's not ok to outsource". There's not enough nuance in either of those statements to be completely true or false. The unfortunate thing with Walmart is that they
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: They literally tell them (the manufacturers) how much they will pay for an item. That's no different than contract bidding. When you have as much power as Walmart, you can push your suppliers further. I remember reading one article where the supplier said that Walmart came to them and told them how much they would pay for item X. If they didn't like it, they would stop buying all the company's products. Walmart seems to make a habit of continually reducing the amount they'll pay for a product. For example, they'll say, we paid X dollars for this item last year. We want it for 5% less this year. Walmart does run a very efficient business. I just wish they'd stop pushing their suppliers to the brink of banruptcy in order to get wealthy (where do you think that $100+ billion in Walmart family wealth came from?) I understand they're pretty heavy handed in preventing unions from forming, thus allowing them to pay their employees low wages. I can't say I'm a huge fan of unions, but it seems a bit heavy handed in light of their 100 billion dollar fortune. Remember: in any bargaining situation, there are power structures in place which strengthen or weaken your bargaining position. Unions are a way to get bargaining power over management. Walmart, with it's 4000+ stores has enormous amounts of power over it's suppliers. The suppliers are divided and Walmart plays them against each other. This is not like "contract bidding" because you're ignoring the existence of the power structures which allows Walmart to grab the best of every deal. Jeremy Falcon wrote: That's no different than outsourcing. If you (generalizing) believe it's ok to outsource, then why is it bad to do this? They increase the pressure to outsource. Outsourcing is not all bad or all good. Some business people like to focus on the fact that people are getting lower prices. Of course, the other side of the equation is that you may end up with fewer jobs or worse-paying jobs. If the items you buy cost 10% less, but you lose your job or get a lower-paying job, you can end up with less buying power. One of my main concerns with outsourcing is that we (Americans) are selling out our position in the world as technological leaders. So, I not someone who says, "it's ok to outsource" or "it's not ok to outsource". There's not enough nuance in either of those statements to be completely true or false. The unfortunate thing with Walmart is that they
Brit wrote: I just wish they'd stop pushing their suppliers to the brink of banruptcy in order to get wealthy (where do you think that $100+ billion in Walmart family wealth came from?) I agree, but how can we chastise Wal-Mart for this and not Microsoft? They did the same thing. Brit wrote: Of course, the other side of the equation is that you may end up with fewer jobs or worse-paying jobs. Bingo! I was waiting for someone to say this. I'm actually against outsourcing (long story in itself). I was pushing the low price button to get it out of people (I know, I'm evil :)). Personally, outsourcing in itself isn't bad (think global economy) if and only if we get a return of jobs that are being outsourced to us and the exchange rate didn't prevent that. But, since that'll never happen, then outsourcing does more harm than good in the grand scheme of things. Jeremy Falcon
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote: They literally tell them (the manufacturers) how much they will pay for an item. That's no different than contract bidding. When you have as much power as Walmart, you can push your suppliers further. I remember reading one article where the supplier said that Walmart came to them and told them how much they would pay for item X. If they didn't like it, they would stop buying all the company's products. Walmart seems to make a habit of continually reducing the amount they'll pay for a product. For example, they'll say, we paid X dollars for this item last year. We want it for 5% less this year. Walmart does run a very efficient business. I just wish they'd stop pushing their suppliers to the brink of banruptcy in order to get wealthy (where do you think that $100+ billion in Walmart family wealth came from?) I understand they're pretty heavy handed in preventing unions from forming, thus allowing them to pay their employees low wages. I can't say I'm a huge fan of unions, but it seems a bit heavy handed in light of their 100 billion dollar fortune. Remember: in any bargaining situation, there are power structures in place which strengthen or weaken your bargaining position. Unions are a way to get bargaining power over management. Walmart, with it's 4000+ stores has enormous amounts of power over it's suppliers. The suppliers are divided and Walmart plays them against each other. This is not like "contract bidding" because you're ignoring the existence of the power structures which allows Walmart to grab the best of every deal. Jeremy Falcon wrote: That's no different than outsourcing. If you (generalizing) believe it's ok to outsource, then why is it bad to do this? They increase the pressure to outsource. Outsourcing is not all bad or all good. Some business people like to focus on the fact that people are getting lower prices. Of course, the other side of the equation is that you may end up with fewer jobs or worse-paying jobs. If the items you buy cost 10% less, but you lose your job or get a lower-paying job, you can end up with less buying power. One of my main concerns with outsourcing is that we (Americans) are selling out our position in the world as technological leaders. So, I not someone who says, "it's ok to outsource" or "it's not ok to outsource". There's not enough nuance in either of those statements to be completely true or false. The unfortunate thing with Walmart is that they
Oh, don't get me wrong though. I do think the concept of low prices is important, but not at the expense of jobs. Jeremy Falcon