The WalMart concept does not work everywhere
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Nobody climbs to the top without stepping on a few heads - it's impossible.
Maybe. But what you do when you're on top also is important. WalMart, all I see them doing is trying to make more and more money. Those ads they have about being community oriented. What a load of BS. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmerMarc Clifton wrote:
all I see them doing is trying to make more and more money
Name one (for profit) company in the world that doesn't do this?
Jeremy Falcon
-
Here are some good news: No more Mal Mart stores in Germany. Finally, they'll leave us alone! :cool: http://www.union-network.org/UNICommerce.nsf/0/34B5020875B021ADC12571B900362101?OpenDocument "Wal-Mart has thrown in the towel in Germany and will sell its 85 hypermarkets to the Metro Group. The American retailer was never able to run its German operations profitably. From morning cheers to cutting personnel and closing stores, almost everything was tried, but still it did not work. [...] Now the Bentonville managers have seen that walmartization of working life does not work where unions are strong, be it here or in South Korea which the company is also leaving. [...] When the Bentonville multinational tried to establish its American business concept in Germany, things started to go wrong. Shopping patterns were different, as was competition. There were also questions asked about whether the company had really bought the right store network. It was not even enough to subsidise the German operations with money earned through low wages and poor helth insurance in Wal-Mart's main US markets. Allowing the bottom line in Germany to go red by hundreds of millions USD and engaging in brutal price wars in vain attempts to gain market shares, Wal-Mart tried to use its dominant global market position to press its competitors. But Wal-Mart's concept does not travel, Metro Group CEO Hans-Joachim Körber said a few years ago. Today we can see that he was right, when Germany's Wal-Marts now will turn into Real hypermarkets." Good Bye, Wal Mart ... or should I say Good Buy? coco
It's not that I'm unhappy or want to spoil the day for anyone, but I don't think it has much to do with unions, but rather there are to many strong supermarket discounters already available here.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
Corinna John wrote:
But Wal-Mart's concept does not travel
I'm not a big fan of walmart, but I don't see what is being celebrated here. Walmart doesn't allow unions in the US for the simple reason that it doesn't work for their business model. They tried running stores in a country with strong unions and failed. That's not a big surprise. Strong unions in america's automobile industry make US car companies turn to contractors instead of hiring full-time workers. I, for one, think unions can very quickly become too powerful and stagnate competition. Maybe you're happy you have strong unions; I wouldn't be.
Because Walmart brings you the best of capitalism free market and general freedom: less jobs that are more sucky, less margins of survival for producers, and fake smiles on the way out. But at least you get it ten cents cheaper. It's not that we don't have enough of this over here. -- modified at 17:16 Friday 28th July, 2006: in jobs and the ABC, B comes before S. And you still make me O sometimes.
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
ACK. They didn't try to learn from their local competitors. You actually can be successful in Europe, but the rules are different. Love it or leave it: If they don't like the rules of our market, they're free to go home.
Corinna John wrote:
You actually can be successful in Europe
I have no doubt. My uncle built a very successful business in Germany many years ago. Successful enough, that he was able to retire at an early age and put his children and grandchildren through collage. To me this whole matter is not about Germany and her unions but Wal-Marts inflexiable approach.
Hey don't worry, I can handle it. I took something. I can see things no one else can see. Why are you dressed like that? - Jack Burton
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
all I see them doing is trying to make more and more money
Name one (for profit) company in the world that doesn't do this?
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Name one (for profit) company in the world that doesn't do this?
I can't. But that doesn't mean it's right. Yeah, I know, WTF am I talking about, right? What I mean is, profit and greed are synonymous nowadays. They shouldn't be. Profit and local/global responsibility seem to be mutually exclusive. Again, they shouldn't be. My utopia, yeah, I know. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer -
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Name one (for profit) company in the world that doesn't do this?
I can't. But that doesn't mean it's right. Yeah, I know, WTF am I talking about, right? What I mean is, profit and greed are synonymous nowadays. They shouldn't be. Profit and local/global responsibility seem to be mutually exclusive. Again, they shouldn't be. My utopia, yeah, I know. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmerMarc Clifton wrote:
What I mean is, profit and greed are synonymous nowadays. They shouldn't be.
And yet you ban Wal-Mart and use Microsoft products everyday.
Jeremy Falcon
-
Why do you sound happy about this? Yes, I am not a big fan of Walmart, but neither am I a big fan of Unions. The German people do not want to do morning cheers? Give me a break. This is no different a tactic to raise morale and build a sense of team than a soccer team having a rah rah session before a big game or a boxers coach pumping them up before a big fight. Geeze man... As far as quality and price go, you get what you pay for. I have bought crappy stuff at a walmart and have also bought good stuff there. It all depends on the 'STUFF'. You buy a TV there, as long as you buy a decent brand how can it matter? So the union has flexed it's muscle and forced a company out of a region. Big deal. I doubt that Walmart will go cower into a corner over it. 85 stores to them is a hardly a drop in the bucket. When I worked for Lenscrafters many moons ago we had a go at the euro market and tried to open several stores in the UK and found it impossible. The costs were so friggin high because shippers wanted a mint, all the store managers demanded company cars because 'well that's just how it is bloody done in the UK chap'... I guess the US is just a unique place with a unique mindset. Maybe that is good, maybe that is bad...
The surface joy is of course the Schadenfreude that those greedy "Bow before me 'cause I give you jobs" dungheads turned out to be "Don't know dung" dungheads. Digging a little bit deeper you find this weird (german?) paradox: "Everybody" agrees that Walmart is just bad for german culture, but "everybody" shops there because it's a few cents cheaper. (Either there are two types of "everybody", or psychatrists can collect rent twice) And even though unions enjoy to claim it as their victory, they were just anti-cheering on the side-lines. There's already to much cutthroat competition between discount markets that there's no room left in this segment. Interestingly, the brothers that run the "known to be cheapest" markets here (Aldi), run the rather high-priced "Traders Joe" in the US. (Thank the gods for Trader Joe)
Some of us walk the memory lane, others plummet into a rabbit hole
Tree in C# || Fold With Us! || sighist -
congratulations! i wish we could thin our population a bit - they seem to show up every 10 miles here in the US. i always find Wal*Marts depressing - grubby, full of crappy stuff and annoying people. i refuse to shop there.
Why donchoo take a peekchur mayn? OK, cleeeeek
You can always visit a Wal-Mart to disprove natural selection. ;)
This statement is false.
-
Rocky Moore wrote:
gain some decent quality along with treating their employees
As a former employee of Wal-Mart, I can say they treat their employees much better than many other low-end jobs. People should really learn more before they form concrete opinions.
Jeremy Falcon
I doubt that. Did you work in systems? Are we talking about corporate work or retail work. Wal-Mart just threatened to focus only on outlying areas of Chicago instead of the city proper as Chicago passed a law requiring a livable wage be paid. Wal-Mart isn't going for it. So if they can't pay a livable wage to the bulk of their employees, with no health care either to speak of, guess who ends up footing the bill? Taxpayers, as most of these people are also on federal assistance with either Medicaid/Medicare and/or foodstamps. So even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart your still paying for them to do their business.
This statement is false.
-
In south florida I would rather but a bullet in my head than go to a walmart. Crappy carts, beligerent and offensive customers, poor layout, bad carts, the list goes on. Yet I go to a walmart here in Tulsa and it is better than the local mall. Even all of the shopping carts work!
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
Oh come on... you know you go for the ladies... :laugh:
This statement is false.
-
Chris Losinger wrote:
grubby, full of crappy stuff and annoying people.
I realize I'm not being kind here, but geez, I have never seen so many overweight, sickly, poor, and in need of medical attention (ranging from real attention to cosmetic things like dental work) group of people in one place than I do when I have the unfortunate but rare reason to go to WalMart. And I'm talking consumers, too. And what gets me is, you look at what these people are buying from the food isles, and it's all garbage. It's very, very, sad. Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmerWell, hopefully as this idea gets more mainstream: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060727/hl\_nm/diet\_dc we might see a lightening of that load.
This statement is false.
-
I doubt that. Did you work in systems? Are we talking about corporate work or retail work. Wal-Mart just threatened to focus only on outlying areas of Chicago instead of the city proper as Chicago passed a law requiring a livable wage be paid. Wal-Mart isn't going for it. So if they can't pay a livable wage to the bulk of their employees, with no health care either to speak of, guess who ends up footing the bill? Taxpayers, as most of these people are also on federal assistance with either Medicaid/Medicare and/or foodstamps. So even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart your still paying for them to do their business.
This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I doubt that.
Most stubborn people do.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Are we talking about corporate work or retail work.
You don't read much. I said low-end job, it was obviously retail.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Wal-Mart just threatened to focus only on outlying areas of Chicago instead of the city proper as Chicago passed a law requiring a livable wage be paid.
Once again, you know little. For one, Wal-Mart already paid very close to that amount in most areas. For two, that law only pinned certain business just because they have large stores. How you can you blame Wal-Mart when the govt. unfairly targets companines like them instead of all low wage companines? Also, you better check your stats against what Wal-Mart pays for low-end jobs compared to places like Burger King and McDonalds.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Wal-Mart isn't going for it. So if they can't pay a livable wage to the bulk of their employees, with no health care either to speak of, guess who ends up footing the bill?
Are you on crack? Just how many low-end jobs do you think get healthcare benifits? You're only pinning Wal-Mart because they are friggin huge.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Taxpayers, as most of these people are also on federal assistance with either Medicaid/Medicare and/or foodstamps. So even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart your still paying for them to do their business.
Riiight. And low income workers at other places have nothing involved with this etiher. The govt. only hands out assistance to Wal-Mart workers. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
-
I guess moral superiority is worth the high prices and poor selection those mom & pop stores had. I well remember various mom and pop stores. Some were good, but many had high prices, poor quality, limited selection, and would try to rip you off worse than any big box retailer. I like low prices, wide selection, and stores being open until 10 at night.
Those weren't high prices. That's the price they cost for all parties involved to have a livable wage. Wal-Mart is screwing a lot of people so that we can consume more than we need.
This statement is false.
-
And you propose???? The free market model isn't perfect, but everything else has been worse.
Enforcing a livable wage for all employees. And providing health care. They are one of the largest "profiting" companies because of these mal-practices. This is free exploitation not free enterprise.
This statement is false.
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I doubt that.
Most stubborn people do.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Are we talking about corporate work or retail work.
You don't read much. I said low-end job, it was obviously retail.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Wal-Mart just threatened to focus only on outlying areas of Chicago instead of the city proper as Chicago passed a law requiring a livable wage be paid.
Once again, you know little. For one, Wal-Mart already paid very close to that amount in most areas. For two, that law only pinned certain business just because they have large stores. How you can you blame Wal-Mart when the govt. unfairly targets companines like them instead of all low wage companines? Also, you better check your stats against what Wal-Mart pays for low-end jobs compared to places like Burger King and McDonalds.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Wal-Mart isn't going for it. So if they can't pay a livable wage to the bulk of their employees, with no health care either to speak of, guess who ends up footing the bill?
Are you on crack? Just how many low-end jobs do you think get healthcare benifits? You're only pinning Wal-Mart because they are friggin huge.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Taxpayers, as most of these people are also on federal assistance with either Medicaid/Medicare and/or foodstamps. So even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart your still paying for them to do their business.
Riiight. And low income workers at other places have nothing involved with this etiher. The govt. only hands out assistance to Wal-Mart workers. :laugh:
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Most stubborn people do.
Name calling?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You don't read much.
Assuming a bit here no?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Once again, you know little.
I detect a pattern here.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
How you can you blame Wal-Mart when the govt. unfairly targets companines like them instead of all low wage companines?
What did I blame Wal-Mart for? The city of Chicago passed a livable wage law. This is fact. Wal-Mart lobbied against it. This is fact. No accusations, just the facts. And the law targets all major retailers, not just Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart were just the ones that were majorly lobbying against the law.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Are you on crack?
Ok, look, in critical thinking this is a falacy and is commonly used as a tactic when trying to support a weak argument. I get it. You love Wal-Mart. Good for you.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Just how many low-end jobs do you think get healthcare benifits? You're only pinning Wal-Mart because they are friggin huge.
I'm not only pinning Wal-Mart. But your right they are friggin' huge. They had the largest profit of any company, in the billions, until the oil companies pushed them out of the slot. And that's profit, not revenue. Over and above costs. The argument here is that they can afford to pay a livable wage. They do squeeze out local businesses to dominate the market share. And tax payers do compensate for these practices by subsidizing the efforts. Those are facts.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Riiight. And low income workers at other places have nothing involved with this etiher. The govt. only hands out assistance to Wal-Mart workers.
And now your speaking for me. I never said that only Wal-Mart does this. But they are the poster child. If you want to insult instead of debate the issue, then it belongs in the soapbox.
This statement is false.
-
Why do you sound happy about this? Yes, I am not a big fan of Walmart, but neither am I a big fan of Unions. The German people do not want to do morning cheers? Give me a break. This is no different a tactic to raise morale and build a sense of team than a soccer team having a rah rah session before a big game or a boxers coach pumping them up before a big fight. Geeze man... As far as quality and price go, you get what you pay for. I have bought crappy stuff at a walmart and have also bought good stuff there. It all depends on the 'STUFF'. You buy a TV there, as long as you buy a decent brand how can it matter? So the union has flexed it's muscle and forced a company out of a region. Big deal. I doubt that Walmart will go cower into a corner over it. 85 stores to them is a hardly a drop in the bucket. When I worked for Lenscrafters many moons ago we had a go at the euro market and tried to open several stores in the UK and found it impossible. The costs were so friggin high because shippers wanted a mint, all the store managers demanded company cars because 'well that's just how it is bloody done in the UK chap'... I guess the US is just a unique place with a unique mindset. Maybe that is good, maybe that is bad...
Well, we're seeing the difference in cultures. Here in America we glorify business and money. Over there it seems to be more of a quality of life issue.
This statement is false.
-
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Most stubborn people do.
Name calling?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
You don't read much.
Assuming a bit here no?
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Once again, you know little.
I detect a pattern here.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
How you can you blame Wal-Mart when the govt. unfairly targets companines like them instead of all low wage companines?
What did I blame Wal-Mart for? The city of Chicago passed a livable wage law. This is fact. Wal-Mart lobbied against it. This is fact. No accusations, just the facts. And the law targets all major retailers, not just Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart were just the ones that were majorly lobbying against the law.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Are you on crack?
Ok, look, in critical thinking this is a falacy and is commonly used as a tactic when trying to support a weak argument. I get it. You love Wal-Mart. Good for you.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Just how many low-end jobs do you think get healthcare benifits? You're only pinning Wal-Mart because they are friggin huge.
I'm not only pinning Wal-Mart. But your right they are friggin' huge. They had the largest profit of any company, in the billions, until the oil companies pushed them out of the slot. And that's profit, not revenue. Over and above costs. The argument here is that they can afford to pay a livable wage. They do squeeze out local businesses to dominate the market share. And tax payers do compensate for these practices by subsidizing the efforts. Those are facts.
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
Riiight. And low income workers at other places have nothing involved with this etiher. The govt. only hands out assistance to Wal-Mart workers.
And now your speaking for me. I never said that only Wal-Mart does this. But they are the poster child. If you want to insult instead of debate the issue, then it belongs in the soapbox.
This statement is false.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Assuming a bit here no?
Read it in context. And, based on your post, you don't know what you are talking about.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I detect a pattern here.
Detect the pattern in context.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What did I blame Wal-Mart for?
You made them sound bad for them moving their stores because of it.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What did I blame Wal-Mart for? The city of Chicago passed a livable wage law. This is fact. Wal-Mart lobbied against it. This is fact.
No duh. When did I deny this? I said it was an unfair law that pinned just a few companies like Wal-Mart - based off a something as abitrary as large stores (ie, retailers).
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
And the law targets all major retailers, not just Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart were just the ones that were majorly lobbying against the law.
Next time, actually read my post. I never once said this. And, how do you know other retailers weren't against this? Also, did you stop to think that maybe Wal-Mart was lobbying because they had more play money to lobby with than other stores who just have to deal with it?
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'm not only pinning Wal-Mart
Yes you are. The whole damn thread is about Wal-Mart. I said their employees aren't treated bad, you say they are. You never once mentioned another store in your gripes about taxes - just Wal-Mart. Stop with the petty arguing just to argue for argument's sake.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
They had the largest profit of any company, in the billions, until the oil companies pushed them out of the slot. And that's profit, not revenue. Over and above costs.
Well, if that's not enough to make them evil, then what is? (That's sarcasm btw.) Bill G is also the richest man in the World, do you think that makes him evil?
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The argument here is that they can afford to pay a livable wage.
Most business could afford to pay their employees a bit more. But most business focus on the shareholders first - Wal-Mart is no different. Like I said already (the point you keep ignoring) they do pay better
-
Oh come on... you know you go for the ladies... :laugh:
This statement is false.
Women without front teeth do have certain advantages.
A man said to the universe: "Sir I exist!" "However," replied the Universe, "The fact has not created in me A sense of obligation." -- Stephen Crane
-
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
Assuming a bit here no?
Read it in context. And, based on your post, you don't know what you are talking about.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I detect a pattern here.
Detect the pattern in context.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What did I blame Wal-Mart for?
You made them sound bad for them moving their stores because of it.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
What did I blame Wal-Mart for? The city of Chicago passed a livable wage law. This is fact. Wal-Mart lobbied against it. This is fact.
No duh. When did I deny this? I said it was an unfair law that pinned just a few companies like Wal-Mart - based off a something as abitrary as large stores (ie, retailers).
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
And the law targets all major retailers, not just Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart were just the ones that were majorly lobbying against the law.
Next time, actually read my post. I never once said this. And, how do you know other retailers weren't against this? Also, did you stop to think that maybe Wal-Mart was lobbying because they had more play money to lobby with than other stores who just have to deal with it?
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
I'm not only pinning Wal-Mart
Yes you are. The whole damn thread is about Wal-Mart. I said their employees aren't treated bad, you say they are. You never once mentioned another store in your gripes about taxes - just Wal-Mart. Stop with the petty arguing just to argue for argument's sake.
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
They had the largest profit of any company, in the billions, until the oil companies pushed them out of the slot. And that's profit, not revenue. Over and above costs.
Well, if that's not enough to make them evil, then what is? (That's sarcasm btw.) Bill G is also the richest man in the World, do you think that makes him evil?
Chris S Kaiser wrote:
The argument here is that they can afford to pay a livable wage.
Most business could afford to pay their employees a bit more. But most business focus on the shareholders first - Wal-Mart is no different. Like I said already (the point you keep ignoring) they do pay better
The majority of your post consists of insults. If you need to insult to debate the issue, then I'll pass. You're pretty funny. Enjoy the rest of your day and weekend. I'm not taking the bait anymore.
This statement is false.
-
Marc Clifton wrote:
What I mean is, profit and greed are synonymous nowadays. They shouldn't be.
And yet you ban Wal-Mart and use Microsoft products everyday.
Jeremy Falcon
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
And yet you ban Wal-Mart and use Microsoft products everyday.
I also don't put Microsoft into the same category as WalMart when it comes to corporate greed and hurting local business people and economies. We'll see how it goes as MS continues to outsource work as it forays into India and China. I look at what the Gates Foundation does, and I'm reasonably impressed. Microsoft indirectly also creates local job opportunities--certain technologies in general do--as if it weren't for these technologies that Microsoft has played a part in, I wouldn't be able to work out here with farmers as my neighbors. Do I sound defensive of MS? I just don't think that Walmart and Microsoft should be put in the same basket. Do you? Marc
Some people believe what the bible says. Literally. At least [with Wikipedia] you have the chance to correct the wiki -- Jörgen Sigvardsson
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer