Wal-Mart accused of consumer fraud

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

4. Reinvestment of this money in wages would promote retention and significantly raise the income of thousands of Wal-Mart workers earning at or below the poverty level.

sure sure........

I made that post in rebuttal to a previous post that applauded Wal-Mart for their excellent pay and benefits. That is not the case.

Do you disagree with only that statement or the conclusions as a whole? I guess it's debatable but in my employment experience higher wages in a position usually result in higher retention.

i'm questioning if any research was really done for them to make that claim. pay and benefits are not a sure fire way to get people to stay.

Its a pretty good one IMO. If you don't pay people what they're worth or that they can live comfortably on (above the poverty line) - it stands to reason that you're going to attract the desperate or the despondent. Neither of which are good promotable candidates. I think you'll find that WM, like a lot of retail chains has a very distinct class structure in place between the store staff and corporate.

perhaps yes, perhaps no. one could always leave for other reasons besides pay. last job i left could certainly not afford to pay me what i'm being paid now. i don't expect wal-mart to price itself out of the market by paying everyone $20 an hour.

the primary reason i left was to move back to the usa, btw

Edited January 24, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

perhaps yes, perhaps no. one could always leave for other reasons besides pay. last job i left could certainly not afford to pay me what i'm being paid now. i don't expect wal-mart to price itself out of the market by paying everyone $20 an hour.

the primary reason i left was to move back to the usa, btw

I guess it depends the people they hire. Whenever I go to my local WM - I see a lot of teenagers and housewives. In that context the store work force is transitory anyway.

Part of the reason I never went into journalism full time was because of the poor pay and conditions - competition is so fierce for even entry level reporting jobs that people are willing to do it for free.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

4. Reinvestment of this money in wages would promote retention and significantly raise the income of thousands of Wal-Mart workers earning at or below the poverty level.

sure sure........

I made that post in rebuttal to a previous post that applauded Wal-Mart for their excellent pay and benefits. That is not the case.

Do you disagree with only that statement or the conclusions as a whole? I guess it's debatable but in my employment experience higher wages in a position usually result in higher retention.

i'm questioning if any research was really done for them to make that claim. pay and benefits are not a sure fire way to get people to stay.

Without elaborate research, I can assure you that crappy pay and benefits will do nothing for your retention - or for your ability to attract top talent.

[Robor007 0]

We are not allowed to disagree with ONE thing according to Robor007, we have to agree with EVERYTHING or disagree with EVERYTHING or hes going to point it out that we only disagree on ONE thing.

i just want to see him post something that isnt written by someone else.

Um, what? Your first sentence makes no sense...

As far as your second sentence... I've stated my opinion of the store, given reasons why I have those opinions, and provided examples. You on the other hand have only stated your love of Wal-Mart. Good for you. Whatever.

[Robor007 0]

Without elaborate research, I can assure you that crappy pay and benefits will do nothing for your retention - or for your ability to attract top talent.

Bingo!

[Marilyn. 340]

We are not allowed to disagree with ONE thing according to Robor007, we have to agree with EVERYTHING or disagree with EVERYTHING or hes going to point it out that we only disagree on ONE thing.

i just want to see him post something that isnt written by someone else.

Um, what? Your first sentence makes no sense...

As far as your second sentence... I've stated my opinion of the store, given reasons why I have those opinions, and provided examples. You on the other hand have only stated your love of Wal-Mart. Good for you. Whatever.

we have given reasons why we like to shop at Walmart....

you mentioned earlier in this thread that you don't care if people shop at Walmart but it sounds to me that you care a lot and are trying to convert everybody to your way of thinking...

I don't care that you don't like to shop at Walmart.... I just don't like being told that I have lower vaules and morals because I like to shop at Walmart

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

4. Reinvestment of this money in wages would promote retention and significantly raise the income of thousands of Wal-Mart workers earning at or below the poverty level.

sure sure........

I made that post in rebuttal to a previous post that applauded Wal-Mart for their excellent pay and benefits. That is not the case.

Do you disagree with only that statement or the conclusions as a whole? I guess it's debatable but in my employment experience higher wages in a position usually result in higher retention.

i'm questioning if any research was really done for them to make that claim. pay and benefits are not a sure fire way to get people to stay.

Without elaborate research, I can assure you that crappy pay and benefits will do nothing for your retention - or for your ability to attract top talent.

odds are you won't find ceo material running any cash register

[Robor007 0]

We are not allowed to disagree with ONE thing according to Robor007, we have to agree with EVERYTHING or disagree with EVERYTHING or hes going to point it out that we only disagree on ONE thing.

i just want to see him post something that isnt written by someone else.

Um, what? Your first sentence makes no sense...

As far as your second sentence... I've stated my opinion of the store, given reasons why I have those opinions, and provided examples. You on the other hand have only stated your love of Wal-Mart. Good for you. Whatever.

we have given reasons why we like to shop at Walmart....

you mentioned earlier in this thread that you don't care if people shop at Walmart but it sounds to me that you care a lot and are trying to convert everybody to your way of thinking...

I don't care that you don't like to shop at Walmart.... I just don't like being told that I have lower vaules and morals because I like to shop at Walmart

Your reasons are rather obvious. They're everywhere and they have low prices. And I have acknowledged that the convenience and price factors of WalMart are attractive reasons to shop there. I don't deny that. I have also given reasons why I choose to go out of my way to shop elsewhere. It seems each time I've given a reason or provided an example it's challenged as opinion, fabricated, or just plain ignored. It's like WalMart can do no wrong.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

4. Reinvestment of this money in wages would promote retention and significantly raise the income of thousands of Wal-Mart workers earning at or below the poverty level.

sure sure........

I made that post in rebuttal to a previous post that applauded Wal-Mart for their excellent pay and benefits. That is not the case.

Do you disagree with only that statement or the conclusions as a whole? I guess it's debatable but in my employment experience higher wages in a position usually result in higher retention.

i'm questioning if any research was really done for them to make that claim. pay and benefits are not a sure fire way to get people to stay.

Without elaborate research, I can assure you that crappy pay and benefits will do nothing for your retention - or for your ability to attract top talent.

odds are you won't find ceo material running any cash register

In today's world, however, ceo does not necessarily equate to top talent.

[Marilyn. 340]

We are not allowed to disagree with ONE thing according to Robor007, we have to agree with EVERYTHING or disagree with EVERYTHING or hes going to point it out that we only disagree on ONE thing.

i just want to see him post something that isnt written by someone else.

Um, what? Your first sentence makes no sense...

As far as your second sentence... I've stated my opinion of the store, given reasons why I have those opinions, and provided examples. You on the other hand have only stated your love of Wal-Mart. Good for you. Whatever.

we have given reasons why we like to shop at Walmart....

you mentioned earlier in this thread that you don't care if people shop at Walmart but it sounds to me that you care a lot and are trying to convert everybody to your way of thinking...

I don't care that you don't like to shop at Walmart.... I just don't like being told that I have lower vaules and morals because I like to shop at Walmart

Your reasons are rather obvious. They're everywhere and they have low prices. And I have acknowledged that the convenience and price factors of WalMart are attractive reasons to shop there. I don't deny that. I have also given reasons why I choose to go out of my way to shop elsewhere. It seems each time I've given a reason or provided an example it's challenged as opinion, fabricated, or just plain ignored. It's like WalMart can do no wrong.

the same thing can be said about you... you challenged all the reasons we gave for wanting to shop at Walmart... example you said you could get better deals at Ross or TJ Maxx......

I have never said that Walmart is perfect.. I have only said that I like to shop there....

Show me a business that is perfect.....

Edited January 24, 2007 by MarilynP

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

4. Reinvestment of this money in wages would promote retention and significantly raise the income of thousands of Wal-Mart workers earning at or below the poverty level.

sure sure........

I made that post in rebuttal to a previous post that applauded Wal-Mart for their excellent pay and benefits. That is not the case.

Do you disagree with only that statement or the conclusions as a whole? I guess it's debatable but in my employment experience higher wages in a position usually result in higher retention.

i'm questioning if any research was really done for them to make that claim. pay and benefits are not a sure fire way to get people to stay.

Without elaborate research, I can assure you that crappy pay and benefits will do nothing for your retention - or for your ability to attract top talent.

odds are you won't find ceo material running any cash register

In today's world, however, ceo does not necessarily equate to top talent.

agreed. fact is, jobs have a pay scale to them - even yours. i also doubt you'll see a wal-mart cashier making $20 an hour, as they'd be moved into another section of the store before that happened. those who leave a job do so for a variety of reasons (students), those who stay are probably older and have roots in the area.

[Marilyn. 340]

working at Walmart is like working at McDonalds.... most people do it on a temporary basis or in between jobs etc...

[Sinergy 3]

We are not allowed to disagree with ONE thing according to Robor007, we have to agree with EVERYTHING or disagree with EVERYTHING or hes going to point it out that we only disagree on ONE thing.

i just want to see him post something that isnt written by someone else.

Um, what? Your first sentence makes no sense...

As far as your second sentence... I've stated my opinion of the store, given reasons why I have those opinions, and provided examples. You on the other hand have only stated your love of Wal-Mart. Good for you. Whatever.

we have given reasons why we like to shop at Walmart....

you mentioned earlier in this thread that you don't care if people shop at Walmart but it sounds to me that you care a lot and are trying to convert everybody to your way of thinking...

I don't care that you don't like to shop at Walmart.... I just don't like being told that I have lower vaules and morals because I like to shop at Walmart

Believe me if he didnt care weather ppl like walmart or not, he wouldnt have attacked ppl as he has with his "quoted" reasons. Again as i said, he has hardly stated his feelings in words, only in other peoples words.

He doesnt bother me I know walmart rules and there will always be more ppl who love walmart then there will be for him to ever make his "quoted by other ppl" points of view

[Marilyn. 340]

Does Wal-Mart Destroy Communities?

By William Anderson

Posted on 5/1/2004

In a recent poll on the CNN website, viewers were asked the "poll" question of whether or not they believed that Wal-Mart stores were "good" for the "community." Perhaps it is not surprising that a large majority answered "no."

Now, this by itself does not mean much, since these online "polls" are not scientific and reflect only the views of the moment by people who choose to participate. What is more significant, however, was the anti-Wal-Mart content of a speech recently given by Teresa Heinz Kerry, John Kerry's wife and an influential person in her own right. Speaking at a Democratic Party rally, Mrs. Kerry declared that "Wal-Mart destroys communities."

Indeed, Wal-Mart bashing is in vogue. Whether one journeys to the sight of Sojourners Magazine or reads even mainstream news publications, the charges against Wal-Mart abound. According to the consensus of the critics, Wal-Mart is guilty of the following:

* Paying low wages to workers, and generally abusing them.

* Intimidating shoppers by having them "greeted" by an elderly person at the door. (As one writer said, the real purpose of that greeter is to let shoppers know that they are being watched.)

* Putting small stores out of business, as shoppers stop patronizing the little "mom-and-pop" boutiques for the big box, thus "destroying" the look of "Main Street" in small towns and cities.

* Purchasing low-priced goods from abroad, which puts American workers out of jobs.

* Contributing to that allegedly harmful disease known as "consumerism," in which Americans are constantly purchasing goods that the Wal-Mart critics insist that they really don't need. As the bumper sticker of one of my faculty colleagues proclaims: "Mal-Wart: The Source of Cheap #######."

Of course, what really bugs the critics is that people choose to shop at Wal-Mart instead of the places where they would want people to spend their money. (Activists on both left and right often will invoke the name of the "people" when their real goal is to restrict the choices of those "people.") Yet, while up front I question the real motives of the Wal-Mart haters, it still behooves us to answer the charges using economic logic, since many of the arguments against this chain store also appeal to economics.

In a recent article, "Always Low Wages," Brian Bolton declares that Jesus would not shop at Wal-Mart, since the company's employee pay scale is not up to Sojourners' standards. Furthermore, he all but declares it a "sin" for Christians to patronize the store because it imports cheap goods made by people who make even less money than Wal-Mart employees. As Bolton writes, "lower prices equal lower wages."

Nearly all of us would accept higher payment for our services, and Wal-Mart employees are no exception. Yet, that condition alone hardly makes a company's pay scales illegitimate, as Bolton and other critics contend. If my employer were to double my pay tomorrow (which is highly doubtful), I doubt I would object, although I'm sure that most of my colleagues would see the event in a different light. That Frostburg State University does not make that offer to me does not make my current salary illicit, nor does it make my employer the second coming of Silas Marner.

The point is this: payment for services involves mutually agreeable exchanges. They are not manifestations of power, as some would say. No one is forced to work at Wal-Mart; people who choose to work there do so because they prefer employment there to other circumstances.

At the local Wal-Mart where I shop (contrary to Bolton, I do not believe that shopping at Wal-Mart violates the Holy Scriptures), I have noticed that many employees have stayed with that company for a long time, and there does not seem to be much turnover there. Furthermore, from what I can tell, they seem like normal people, not the oppressed slaves that the critics claim fill the ranks of Wal-Mart workers.

Now, my personal observations hardly constitute proof that Bolton and the other Wal-Mart critics are wrong, but unless they can repudiate the opportunity cost argument, they have ground upon which to stand. Wal-Mart is not engaged in a grand conspiracy to push down wages in any given market, and twisted logic cannot prove otherwise.

For example, Bolton writes that part of the problem faced by recent striking union grocery store workers in Southern California was that Wal-Mart super centers in the area paid lower wages, which placed pressure on the other grocery stores. Thus, he reasons, it was Wal-Mart that ultimately kept workers from receiving "just wages" for their work.

No doubt, Bolton can appeal to the anti-capitalist mentality of many people, but his work stands economic logic upon its head. By paying lower wages, Wal-Mart makes grocery stores like Vons and other places that pay union scale more attractive to workers (although labor unions do not exactly welcome some potential employees with open arms). The success of Wal-Mart does not have to do with the pay scale of its employees, but rather with the perception by consumers that the store will have the goods they want at an affordable price.

Bolton claims that Wal-Mart can charge lower prices and still be profitable because it pays its employees less than do other companies. As anyone with even cursory training in Austrian Economics knows, such an argument is false. As Murray Rothbard points out in Man, Economy, and State, economic profit exists because of temporarily underpriced factors of production. Over time, as the owners recognize their position, they will either refuse to sell their factors at current prices and look to other options, or accept the current price because the opportunity costs of selling to other buyers may be higher than they wish to incur. If it is the latter, then one cannot say that these particular factors are even underpriced, as their owners are not able or willing to do what is necessary to gain higher prices for their employment.

In places like Southern California, where there are numerous employment opportunities, to say that workers are "forced" to work at Wal-Mart for "slave wages" is ridiculous. As noted before, the fact that workers there would be willing to accept higher pay is not evidence that they are enslaved. That they would prefer more to less simply means that they are normal, purposeful human beings.

One can easily dismiss the charge about the "greeter" at the door—unless one truly is intimidated by the presence of a diminutive 60-year-old grandmother. (What I have found is that if I select merchandise and actually pay for it, then no one there bothers me at all. If activists are upset that Wal-Mart does not like individuals to steal goods from their shelves, then they are advocating theft, and one does not have to pay attention to their arguments at all.)

The "Wal-Mart destroys the community" charge, however, needs more attention. It goes as such: Wal-Mart enters a geographical area, and people stop shopping at little stores in order to patronize Wal-Mart. The mom-and-pop stores go out of business, the community is left with boarded-up buildings, and people must leave the small businesses and accept lower wages at Wal-Mart. Thus, while a shiny new store full of inexpensive goods is in the locality, in real terms, most everyone actually is poorer.

Again, these kinds of arguments appeal to many people. For example, all of us have heard of the theoretical owner of the small, independent hardware store who had to close his shop when Wal-Mart or Home Depot moved into his community, then suffer the indignity of having to go to work at the very place that put him on the streets. The former owner has a lower income than before, which is held up as proof that the "big boys" create and expand poverty.

A few items need to be put in order. First, no one forced the hardware owner to close his shop; he closed it because it was not profitable enough for him to keep it open. If the new chain store meant that many of his former customers had abandoned him, that is not the fault of the new store. Instead, consumers faced with choices and lower prices that they had not previously enjoyed freely chose to patronize the new store.

Second, while the owner of the smaller store has suffered a loss of income, everyone else has gained. Third, if the employees of the smaller store go to work at the new chain store, it is almost guaranteed that their pay will be higher than before and they will enjoy new benefits that most likely had not been available to them previously.

Third, the presence of Wal-Mart means local consumers will pay lower prices for goods than before, and also will benefit by having a wider array of available items than they had previously. (And they save on time by being able to stay under one roof while shopping for different items.) Whatever the reason, we can safely assume that consumers in that particular locality are exercising their free choices, choices that they perceive will make them better off than they were before the store existed. Activists may not like their reasoning, but that is irrelevant to our analysis.

Having dealt with the "Wal-Mart" creates poverty argument, we now turn to the more nebulous claim that the chain store "destroys" communities. Now, I have never seen a place that has been severely damaged or "destroyed" by Wal-Mart. (I have seen places that have had their quality of life spoiled by rent controls, "urban renewal," and other statist interventions that so-called activists have championed, but that is another story for another time. Suffice it to say that activists are unhappy that individuals freely choose to shop at Wal-Mart, and they want to restrict their choices in the name of "community.")

In fact, I would like to make a reverse argument; Wal-Mart and stores like it add to the quality of life in large and small communities because they provide consumer choices that otherwise would not be available. Take the area near Cumberland, Maryland, where I live, for example.

Cumberland is something of a time warp, a place that 50 years ago was a manufacturing center and was the second-largest city in Maryland. Today, most of the large factories are long shut down and the population is less than half of Cumberland's heyday numbers. Furthermore, the area has a relatively high unemployment rate and many jobs do not pay very well.

The presence of Wal-Mart and Lowe's (a large hardware store), along with some large grocery chains, however, means that people here can stretch their incomes farther than we would if those stores did not exist. If they suddenly were to pull out, one can be assured that our quality of life here would not improve in their absence. Furthermore, the fact that Wal-Mart and other large stores are willing to locate in smaller and poorer communities also makes these areas more attractive for people who wish to live here but do not want to have to give up all of the amenities of living in a larger city.

Others on this page and elsewhere have dealt with the charge that Wal-Mart destroys American jobs by purchasing goods from abroad, where the goods often are manufactured in what activists call "oppressive" conditions. (In fact, Sojourners elsewhere has openly stated that Third World peoples should simply be supported by American aid, and that the West should do all it can to make sure that the economies of these poor nations do not grow, all in the name of environmentalism. In other words, none of us are poor enough to satisfy the anti-Wal-Mart activists whose real goal is to eviscerate our own standards of living and "turn back the clock" to an era when life expectancy was lower and people generally were more deprived.)

The last objection—that Wal-Mart helps create "mindless" consumerism—is easily refuted by Austrian economics. The very basis of human action is purposeful behavior; to call human action "mindless" is absurd. Consumers at Wal-Mart and other chain stores are not zombies walking aimlessly through the building with glassy stares. They are human beings with needs and desires who perceive that at least some of those desires can be fulfilled through the use of goods purchased at Wal-Mart.

In a free society, activists would have to try to convince other individuals to change their buying habits via persuasion and voluntary action. Yet, the very history of "progressivist" activism in this country tells us a story of people who use the state to force others to do what they would not do given free choices. Yesterday, Microsoft was in their crosshairs; today, it is Wal-Mart, and tomorrow, some other hapless firm will be declared guilty of providing customers choices that they had not enjoyed before. A great sin, indeed.

http://www.mises.org/story/1521

[Marilyn. 340]

mmm this article is interesting, specially the part I bolded....

Wal-Mart: Good or bad for America? (Tucker Carlson)

I don't like Wal-Mart. But then I don't have to. I'm not looking for a job; I don't need to shop for bargains. My objections to Wal-Mart are mostly aesthetic. Wal-Mart is ugly. Its presence tends to push smaller, more picturesque stores out of business. I like small, picturesque stores. They're more interesting. They're also more expensive, which is why, when given the choice, most people choose Wal-Mart.

For the average person, opposing Wal-Mart is an unaffordable luxury. And that is why the anti-Wal-Mart "activists" you run across in the news business invariably come from upper-middle class backgrounds. (Come to think of it, almost every professional activist I've ever met came from privilege. Working people are too busy working.) There's nothing necessarily wrong with this. But the activists should admit the truth: the debate over Wal-Mart is really a debate about aesthetics and social class.

Robert Greenwald does not admit this. Greenwald is a liberal filmmaker (his last two documentaries focused on Enron and Fox News) who has just released a documentary attacking Wal-Mart. The film is called, "The High Cost of Low Price." I just finished watching it. It's terrible. Parts of it are also dishonest. For example:

The film opens with the story of H and H Hardware, a family-owned store in Middlefield, Ohio

FREE VIDEO

• Wal-Mart woes

11/22:Wal-mart's low prices may be great for shoppers, but is the retail giant good for America? The Situation's Tucker Carlson talks to Robert Greenwald, the producer/director of the new documentary "Wal-mart, The High Cost of Low Prices."

that has been in business for more than 40 years. But there's a problem: Wal-Mart is coming to town, and you know what that means. Sure enough, Wal-Mart arrives and the store goes under, along with the dreams of the Hunter family, which has nurtured the business, and the community, for so long.

That's what the movie tells us. The reality: According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, H and H Hardware went out of business almost three months before Wal-Mart opened its doors. One event had nothing to do with the other. "I think Wal-Mart hurts a lot of small businesses," founder Don Hunter told the paper. "But it's not the reason we closed. Absolutely not." As it turns out, the Hunters sold their store to a new owner. It is now a hardware store again - despite Wal-Mart.

There may be other factual inaccuracies in the film, though I didn't pick up on them. I was too numb after 90 minutes of unrelenting, irony-free propaganda. It's hard to think of a single social ill that Greenwald doesn't accuse Wal-Mart of causing. It is overkill of the most heavy-handed kind. By the end of the movie, I was rooting for the company. And, again, I don't like Wal-Mart.

Greenwald was on my show Tuesday night Here are a few of the questions I asked him:

If Wal-Mart is so bad, why do 100 million Americans shop there every week? Is a third of the population too dumb to know they're acting against their own interests?

Wal-Mart employs 1.3 million people in this country. Yes, their wages are low, by and large. But if they could find better jobs, why are these people working at Wal-Mart? If Wal-Mart didn't exist, why do you think they'd be paid higher wages?

Do small businesses - the fabled "mom and pop" stores you hear so much about - have a right to remain in business, even though they charge people more than Wal-Mart does for the same products? If so, what other professions have a right to charge above-market prices for their goods and services? Do I have a right to double my salary as a talk show host, regardless of how many people watch my show?

You attack Wal-Mart's desire to beat its competitors. But how is it different from any other company's competitive desire? How is it different from any professional athlete's?

And so on. It took a lot to make me side with Wal-Mart. In just 90 minutes, Robert Greenwald did it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8063563/