The Collapsing American Middle Class

[Divine Wind]

Well in capitalism its all about money first....that's what capitalism is all about. Morals CANNOT be a part of it.

A bit extreme. Yes, capitalism is about making money but not everyone is willing to poison babies with snake oil in order to make a profit. That's why morals are a part of it since capitalism, like any other tool, is operated by human beings.

Not extreme at all. Corporations have no morals because people have morals and corporations are not people.

As for corporations poisoning babies, there are laws against that, and even then, it hasn't stopped them. From Love Canal to Flint Michigan, to the chemical leaks in Virginia a couple of years ago, corporations have been shown to be all to willing to poison babies, in violation of those laws.

OTOH, corporations who are willing to use government programs to supplement the wages of their workers aren't doing anything illegal, but it sure as hell is immoral. Paying low wages and encouraging employees to get government assistance, which many highly profitable companies do, may not be illegal, but it sure is immoral.

Corporations don't poison babies. It's people who have morals and choose to poison babies or not.

Corporations are soulless, lifeless tools who are nothing without people to drive them. Which is why I find it disturbing when a soulless, lifeless construct is given the rights of a citizen.

 

[kaz]

What does that have to do with Reagan firing the PATCO strikers?

It was part of the technological demands.

You obviously didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Technological demands were far down the list in priority.

American air-traffic controllers strike for benefits and pay, 1981 | Global Nonviolent Action Database
The union intended the strike to address four main concerns:

1. Rank and filers maintained that their work was seriously undervalued and under-rewarded
2. That their work week was unreasonably long, especially in comparison to the hour worked by their overseas counterparts
3. That the FAA’s approach to supervision and to union-management relations undermined morale and the safety of the system
4. And that the FAA neglected serious deficiencies in staffing levels and hardware reliability.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 7 a.m. EST on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In doing so, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.

Robert Poli, who led 1981 strike that led Reagan to fire traffic controllers, dies at 78
The PATCO work stoppage began Aug. 3, 1981, when at least 12,000 of the nation’s 17,000 air traffic controllers defied federal law and walked off their jobs, seeking higher pay, shorter hours, better equipment and improved working conditions in a long-simmering labor dispute.

They were on the list, and they were safety demands. You have a problem with safety? Seems Reagan did.

Bullshit all you want but when someone asks for money first and safety 3rd or 4th, it's pretty easy to know what their priorities are regarding safety.

That said, I think Reagan was wrong in his handling of the issue, but right to hammer PATCO for illegal action. Example, he could simply have arrested and charged union leaders for violating federal law and given them the option to comply or go to prison.

FWIW, I've dealt extensively with both NATCA and Airlines for America (formerly the ATA) There is no doubt in my mind money is their first and foremost priority. "Safety" only comes in when it adversely affects their paychecks or profit margin.

Bullshit! Reagan said FUCK YOU to government employees and the flying public.

Well, since you have nothing left but emotional rhetoric, there's no way to move forward.

He's a one percenter you know. He got rich by inventing the tampon and he never asks someone to use a product he doesn't use himself

 

[Divine Wind]

You obviously didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Technological demands were far down the list in priority.

American air-traffic controllers strike for benefits and pay, 1981 | Global Nonviolent Action Database
The union intended the strike to address four main concerns:

1. Rank and filers maintained that their work was seriously undervalued and under-rewarded
2. That their work week was unreasonably long, especially in comparison to the hour worked by their overseas counterparts
3. That the FAA’s approach to supervision and to union-management relations undermined morale and the safety of the system
4. And that the FAA neglected serious deficiencies in staffing levels and hardware reliability.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 7 a.m. EST on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In doing so, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.

Robert Poli, who led 1981 strike that led Reagan to fire traffic controllers, dies at 78
The PATCO work stoppage began Aug. 3, 1981, when at least 12,000 of the nation’s 17,000 air traffic controllers defied federal law and walked off their jobs, seeking higher pay, shorter hours, better equipment and improved working conditions in a long-simmering labor dispute.

They were on the list, and they were safety demands. You have a problem with safety? Seems Reagan did.

Bullshit all you want but when someone asks for money first and safety 3rd or 4th, it's pretty easy to know what their priorities are regarding safety.

That said, I think Reagan was wrong in his handling of the issue, but right to hammer PATCO for illegal action. Example, he could simply have arrested and charged union leaders for violating federal law and given them the option to comply or go to prison.

FWIW, I've dealt extensively with both NATCA and Airlines for America (formerly the ATA) There is no doubt in my mind money is their first and foremost priority. "Safety" only comes in when it adversely affects their paychecks or profit margin.

Bullshit! Reagan said FUCK YOU to government employees and the flying public.

Well, since you have nothing left but emotional rhetoric, there's no way to move forward.

He's a one percenter you know. He got rich by inventing the tampon and he never asks someone to use a product he doesn't use himself

I wondered about that.

FWIW, just like there are Stolen Valor "vets" on the Internet, I've run into a few who were the equivalent when it comes to claiming how rich and/or powerful they are. Difficult to prove without more direct evidence, but if a person acts like a complete moron, either they inherited it all or they aren't what they claim.

 

[kaz]

They were on the list, and they were safety demands. You have a problem with safety? Seems Reagan did.

Bullshit all you want but when someone asks for money first and safety 3rd or 4th, it's pretty easy to know what their priorities are regarding safety.

That said, I think Reagan was wrong in his handling of the issue, but right to hammer PATCO for illegal action. Example, he could simply have arrested and charged union leaders for violating federal law and given them the option to comply or go to prison.

FWIW, I've dealt extensively with both NATCA and Airlines for America (formerly the ATA) There is no doubt in my mind money is their first and foremost priority. "Safety" only comes in when it adversely affects their paychecks or profit margin.

Bullshit! Reagan said FUCK YOU to government employees and the flying public.

Well, since you have nothing left but emotional rhetoric, there's no way to move forward.

He's a one percenter you know. He got rich by inventing the tampon and he never asks someone to use a product he doesn't use himself

I wondered about that.

FWIW, just like there are Stolen Valor "vets" on the Internet, I've run into a few who were the equivalent when it comes to claiming how rich and/or powerful they are. Difficult to prove without more direct evidence, but if a person acts like a complete moron, either they inherited it all or they aren't what they claim.

Yes, and I constantly inform one percenter of that. He claims to make $4.6 million a year and yet he doesn't know shit about business

 

[Divine Wind]

Yes, and I constantly inform one percenter of that. He claims to make $4.6 million a year and yet he doesn't know shit about business

Not saying this is him, but people like Paris Hilton are the dumbasses living off of daddy's wealth. I'm sure she "makes" at least $4.6M/YR in dividends. Another reason to revisit the inheritance issue.

 

[OnePercenter]

What does that have to do with Reagan firing the PATCO strikers?

It was part of the technological demands.

You obviously didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Technological demands were far down the list in priority.

American air-traffic controllers strike for benefits and pay, 1981 | Global Nonviolent Action Database
The union intended the strike to address four main concerns:

1. Rank and filers maintained that their work was seriously undervalued and under-rewarded
2. That their work week was unreasonably long, especially in comparison to the hour worked by their overseas counterparts
3. That the FAA’s approach to supervision and to union-management relations undermined morale and the safety of the system
4. And that the FAA neglected serious deficiencies in staffing levels and hardware reliability.

Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization (1968) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At 7 a.m. EST on August 3, 1981, the union declared a strike, seeking better working conditions, better pay and a 32-hour workweek. In addition, PATCO wanted to be excluded from the civil service clauses that it had long disliked. In doing so, the union violated 5 U.S.C. (Supp. III 1956) 118p (now 5 U.S.C. § 7311), which prohibits strikes by federal government employees. Ronald Reagan declared the PATCO strike a "peril to national safety" and ordered them back to work under the terms of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947. Only 1,300 of the nearly 13,000 controllers returned to work.

Robert Poli, who led 1981 strike that led Reagan to fire traffic controllers, dies at 78
The PATCO work stoppage began Aug. 3, 1981, when at least 12,000 of the nation’s 17,000 air traffic controllers defied federal law and walked off their jobs, seeking higher pay, shorter hours, better equipment and improved working conditions in a long-simmering labor dispute.

They were on the list, and they were safety demands. You have a problem with safety? Seems Reagan did.

Bullshit all you want but when someone asks for money first and safety 3rd or 4th, it's pretty easy to know what their priorities are regarding safety.

That said, I think Reagan was wrong in his handling of the issue, but right to hammer PATCO for illegal action. Example, he could simply have arrested and charged union leaders for violating federal law and given them the option to comply or go to prison.

FWIW, I've dealt extensively with both NATCA and Airlines for America (formerly the ATA) There is no doubt in my mind money is their first and foremost priority. "Safety" only comes in when it adversely affects their paychecks or profit margin.

Bullshit! Reagan said FUCK YOU to government employees and the flying public.

Well, since you have nothing left but emotional rhetoric, there's no way to move forward.

Well, since you have nothing left but emotional rhetoric, there's no way to move forward.

Which I take it is conservative code for Republicans like to screw workers and don't care about the flying public?

 

[OnePercenter]

Well in capitalism its all about money first....that's what capitalism is all about. Morals CANNOT be a part of it.

A bit extreme. Yes, capitalism is about making money but not everyone is willing to poison babies with snake oil in order to make a profit. That's why morals are a part of it since capitalism, like any other tool, is operated by human beings.

Not extreme at all. Corporations have no morals because people have morals and corporations are not people.

As for corporations poisoning babies, there are laws against that, and even then, it hasn't stopped them. From Love Canal to Flint Michigan, to the chemical leaks in Virginia a couple of years ago, corporations have been shown to be all to willing to poison babies, in violation of those laws.

OTOH, corporations who are willing to use government programs to supplement the wages of their workers aren't doing anything illegal, but it sure as hell is immoral. Paying low wages and encouraging employees to get government assistance, which many highly profitable companies do, may not be illegal, but it sure is immoral.

Corporations don't poison babies. It's people who have morals and choose to poison babies or not.

Corporations are soulless, lifeless tools who are nothing without people to drive them. Which is why I find it disturbing when a soulless, lifeless construct is given the rights of a citizen.

Corporations are soulless, lifeless tools who are nothing without people to drive them. Which is why I find it disturbing when a soulless, lifeless construct is given the rights of a citizen.

It's the Republican way.

 

[OnePercenter]

Yes, and I constantly inform one percenter of that. He claims to make $4.6 million a year and yet he doesn't know shit about business

Not saying this is him, but people like Paris Hilton are the dumbasses living off of daddy's wealth. I'm sure she "makes" at least $4.6M/YR in dividends. Another reason to revisit the inheritance issue.

Why don't you morons try refuting my post instead of stroking each other. You're making Gay look bad....

 

[LeftofLeft]

Just to head this deflection off; this is due to the leadership of BOTH parties being bought by the corporate crony network.

This is not a slam on Dems alone, but all the bastards that undermine our lives and economic future in DC by carrying corporate water for them.

The Bruised and Battered Middle Class

Likewise, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas have the 10 areas with the highest share of lower-income earners. With the exception of New Mexico, all those states have favored either Republicans or Democrats in four straight presidential elections.

The metro regions with the highest percentage of middle-income households, though, are disproportionately located in swing states or states that the Trump campaign believes are ripe for the New York billionaire's economic message. Pennsylvania and Ohio each have one, and Wisconsin alone has four.

"That tells me the trends described in this report are going to benefit the more populist candidates," said Alan Tonelson, an economic policy analyst who is critical of U.S. trade policy. "That seems to me to translate into good news for Trump … [Clinton] doesn't have very deep roots as a trade policy critic."

Socialism cannot have a Middle Class. It is a true locked in 1% elite and then the masses. There is no Middle Class in Socialism.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Just to head this deflection off; this is due to the leadership of BOTH parties being bought by the corporate crony network.

This is not a slam on Dems alone, but all the bastards that undermine our lives and economic future in DC by carrying corporate water for them.

The Bruised and Battered Middle Class

Likewise, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas have the 10 areas with the highest share of lower-income earners. With the exception of New Mexico, all those states have favored either Republicans or Democrats in four straight presidential elections.

The metro regions with the highest percentage of middle-income households, though, are disproportionately located in swing states or states that the Trump campaign believes are ripe for the New York billionaire's economic message. Pennsylvania and Ohio each have one, and Wisconsin alone has four.

"That tells me the trends described in this report are going to benefit the more populist candidates," said Alan Tonelson, an economic policy analyst who is critical of U.S. trade policy. "That seems to me to translate into good news for Trump … [Clinton] doesn't have very deep roots as a trade policy critic."

Socialism cannot have a Middle Class. It is a true locked in 1% elite and then the masses. There is no Middle Class in Socialism.

I disagree. The Nordic Model has a Middle Class.

 

[Dragonlady]

Socialism cannot have a Middle Class. It is a true locked in 1% elite and then the masses. There is no Middle Class in Socialism.

This is completely false. The most successful and thriving middle classes are in the socialist democracies - Canada, the Scandanavian Countries, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany.

Countries which engage in free market economics, such as Chile, and the other South American countries of the 70's who were in such thrall to the Chicago School of Economics, saw the destruction of their middle classes, lower wages, higher prices, for the poor, and the upper class made out like bandits. Sound familiar.

It was Reagan's embrace of Milton's Friedman's economic plan that set the US on the road to destroying its middle class. It's taken 30 years but I would say Friedman's plan has been very successful. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and the middle class is being bled white.

Incidentally, nearly every country which tried Friedman's ideas, has repudiated them. Usually because of the labour unrest caused. Only the Americans stupidly and stubbornly cling to these failed notions.


Another conservative success story.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Socialism cannot have a Middle Class. It is a true locked in 1% elite and then the masses. There is no Middle Class in Socialism.

This is completely false. The most successful and thriving middle classes are in the socialist democracies - Canada, the Scandanavian Countries.

Countries which engage in free market economics, such as Chile, and the other South American countries of the 70's who were in such thrall to the Chicago School of Economics, saw the destruction of their middle classes, lower wages, higher prices, for the poor, and the upper class made out like bandits. Sound familiar.

It was Reagan's embrace of Milton's Friedman's economic plan that set the US on the road to destroying its middle class. It's taken 30 years but I would say Friedman's plan has been very successful. The rich got richer, the poor got poorer, and the middle class is being bled white.

Another conservative success story.

Norway, Sweden and Denmark have higher Gross per capita incomes than the USA.

Median income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dragonlady]

Canada has the fastest growing middle class, but 10 years of Conservative rule has left us with stagnating wages, and an weakened infrastructure. Again, does this sound familiar?

 

[The Rabbi]

Walmart isn't a monopoly and it's getting its ass kicked by Amazon.

Walmart isn't a monopoly and it's getting its ass kicked by Amazon.

Sure it is. Walmart sets the price they sell for, they buy for, how they stock, procure, receive shipments, how the product is packaged, etc. In other words, if you want to sell your product at Walmart, Walmart will dictate how to run your business to do that.

Walmart is a retail company. Amazon is virtual. Apples and Oranges.

Every company decides what price to sell for, what price to buy for, how to stock etc.
Have you actually worked anyplace?

Every company decides what price to sell for, what price to buy for, how to stock etc.

Not if you sell to Walmart.

Have you actually worked anyplace?

My last job as an employee was the United States Coast Guard (1975-77). Since that time I've been the owner of the company.

Yup, you do. WalMart can only tell you the price they are willing to pay. If you accept that, they'll buy. Don't accept it, they wont.
This capitalism free market thing seems to have eluded you.
Were you part of their elite Seal Team?
Or was "United States Coast Guard" the name of a gay bar that you became the owner of?

Yup, you do. WalMart can only tell you the price they are willing to pay. If you accept that, they'll buy. Don't accept it, they wont.
This capitalism free market thing seems to have eluded you.
Were you part of their elite Seal Team?
Or was "United States Coast Guard" the name of a gay bar that you became the owner of?

Walmart is the largest retailer in the world, far bigger than number two. If you want to sell your product at Walmart, they will tell you how much they will pay for it, the size of the product package, how it is to be delivered, and the stock number. If you don't sell at Walmart, you're screwed.

There is no free market, never has been, never will be.

Guess what. If you want to sell your product anywhere the buyer will tell you how it should be packaged,e tc.
I'm not arguing with you anyore. You are a total nitwit poseur who doesn't have the first idea of anything you post about. You don't have a masters in business. You dont even have a masters in bullshit. You're just not that good.

 

[Londoner]

The middle class was created by FDR's tax, labor and trade policies - which not only made it harder for corporations to ship jobs overseas, but kept wages high and health care available through support of unions.

Higher taxes on capital was turned into massive subsidies to college education, which enabled middle class families to educate their children without going into bottomless debt.

But there was a problem with the postwar compromise between capital and labor. The wealthy didn't like it. They didn't want to pay the wages and taxes associated with a thriving, upwardly mobile middle class. They wanted higher profits.

So they purchased a candidate, and his name was Ronald Reagan.

Reagan deployed his acting skills to blame our 70s malaise on the high cost of doing business. He said we could no longer afford the world's most well-paid middle class. He convinced us to wage war on unions and to open trade, so our noble capitalists could shift production to cheaper labor markets in freedom-hating tyrannies like China.

Then he greatly expanded credit, so that the new low-wage middle class could borrow the money they use to make in wages, and so they could pay for college and health care, which were now profitized, monopolized and unaffordable.

But wait it gets better.

Reagan's political party created an outreach program to the very middle class labor movement it destroyed. Rather than being honest about the new partnership between the Republicans and the corporate elite - rather than telling hard working families that they were going to be cut out out of the production loop so that profit margins could go up - they changed the subject by creating a culture war, centered on religion and conservative values, coupled with patriotism and fear (over a slew of strategically elevated domestic and foreign demons, from gays to Muslims).

And guess what? It worked.

Donald Trump inherited the dying middle class - and they actually believe he is going to recreate the high wage structure that Reaganomics dismantled.

They believe that the party of the free market, is going to cut into the profits of business by cutting the middle class back into the production loop.

This is why we need people to go to college in the first place - so they could understand why this would never happen.

 

[OnePercenter]

Walmart isn't a monopoly and it's getting its ass kicked by Amazon.

Sure it is. Walmart sets the price they sell for, they buy for, how they stock, procure, receive shipments, how the product is packaged, etc. In other words, if you want to sell your product at Walmart, Walmart will dictate how to run your business to do that.

Walmart is a retail company. Amazon is virtual. Apples and Oranges.

Every company decides what price to sell for, what price to buy for, how to stock etc.
Have you actually worked anyplace?

Every company decides what price to sell for, what price to buy for, how to stock etc.

Not if you sell to Walmart.

Have you actually worked anyplace?

My last job as an employee was the United States Coast Guard (1975-77). Since that time I've been the owner of the company.

Yup, you do. WalMart can only tell you the price they are willing to pay. If you accept that, they'll buy. Don't accept it, they wont.
This capitalism free market thing seems to have eluded you.
Were you part of their elite Seal Team?
Or was "United States Coast Guard" the name of a gay bar that you became the owner of?

Yup, you do. WalMart can only tell you the price they are willing to pay. If you accept that, they'll buy. Don't accept it, they wont.
This capitalism free market thing seems to have eluded you.
Were you part of their elite Seal Team?
Or was "United States Coast Guard" the name of a gay bar that you became the owner of?

Walmart is the largest retailer in the world, far bigger than number two. If you want to sell your product at Walmart, they will tell you how much they will pay for it, the size of the product package, how it is to be delivered, and the stock number. If you don't sell at Walmart, you're screwed.

There is no free market, never has been, never will be.

Guess what. If you want to sell your product anywhere the buyer will tell you how it should be packaged,e tc.
I'm not arguing with you anyore. You are a total nitwit poseur who doesn't have the first idea of anything you post about. You don't have a masters in business. You dont even have a masters in bullshit. You're just not that good.

Guess what. If you want to sell your product anywhere the buyer will tell you how it should be packaged,e tc.

Which manufacturer holds your packaging needs?

I'm not arguing with you anyore.

If I was handed my ass as many times as you have, I'd run too.

You are a total nitwit poseur who doesn't have the first idea of anything you post about. You don't have a masters in business. You dont even have a masters in bullshit. You're just not that good.

More bloviating?!

 

[Divine Wind]

Why don't you morons try refuting my post instead of stroking each other. You're making Gay look bad....

I'm guessing you make Gay look fabulous!

 

[Divine Wind]

Which I take it is conservative code for Republicans like to screw workers and don't care about the flying public?

You obviously take things however you like without sufficient evidence or reason, so why would you change now?

BTW, I'm not a Republican, but I'm fascinated that you claim to be a rich, successful businessman who is a staunch Democrat.

 

[OnePercenter]

Which I take it is conservative code for Republicans like to screw workers and don't care about the flying public?

You obviously take things however you like without sufficient evidence or reason, so why would you change now?

BTW, I'm not a Republican, but I'm fascinated that you claim to be a rich, successful businessman who is a staunch Democrat.

More bloviating.

 

[320 Years of History]

It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.
-- Murray N. Rothbard​

Dunce. Name one monopoly today.

Walmart.

Walmart is not a monopoly.

Walmart is a monopolistic competitor that competes basically on price. Essentially, any seller who offers a branded product is a monopolistic competitor in the market where that product is bought and sold. With regard to goods that only Walmart offers, Walmart has a monopoly. (McDonald's is also a monopolistic competitor. McDonald's has a monopoly in McDonald's burgers, McDonald's fries, McDonalds coffee, etc.....I'd have used Walmart brands, but I don't know what Walmart's in-house brands are.)

Walmart isn't a monopoly, but it is large enough that other retailers have had to change their labor and hiring practices to stay competitive. Walmart's policies have lead to a decline in the wages paid to retail workers across the board, in the US.

Red:
And what exactly would the changes be?

That's not what actual or potential competitors with Walmart do. They don't because while doing so may yield marginal decreases in their wage expense (non-COGS because we are talking about retailers not manufacturers), those reductions aren't great enough to compensate for insufficient net revenue and inadequate profit margins that result in insufficient cash flows.

What they do is flex their product mix (goods offerings and intangible offerings) in order to minimize the instances of purely price-based competition of competition.

• If they are similarly sized to Walmart:
  • Seek comparable price concessions from suppliers to "level the playing field" in the price dimension
  • Where possible, offer products that consumers will not consider as perfect substitutes for those offered at lower prices by Walmart.
  • Compensate for their inability to secure equally low unit prices by reducing infrastructure (fixed asset) costs and offering proportionally comparable prices via higher quantity unit sales (e.g., $0.79 per box of rice, but the retail consumer must buy four boxes of rice -- spending $3.16 -- rather than the one box they can buy for $0.79 at Walmart). (a la Costco, Sam's Club, BJ's, et al -- essentially they offer manufacturers and distributors inventory turns comparable to what Walmart can, but they can only do so by agreeing to buy larger unit sizes. Walmart buys huge quantities of small unit sizes.)
  • Employ emotional marketing techniques to reduce consumers' price sensitivity (i.e., increase consumers' coefficient of elasticity to "1" or higher) with regard to goods that consumers see as close substitutes.
• If they are materially smaller than Walmart:
  • Offer products that Walmart does not. They do this because they cannot compete on price if they find themselves selling an identical product or a sufficiently close substitute (i.e. consumers have a lower than "1" coefficient of elasticity) to one that Walmart sells. Thus they opt to sell something Walmart does not sell. (Remember, Walmart is a monopolistic competitor not a "perfect competitor;" they sell differentiated goods not commodity goods. That means that the "something", the product, is not wine, but rather "Kendall Jackson wine" and "Rodney Strong wine" and "Stag's Leap wine" and so on. The "something" would be "wine," or maybe "red wine" and "white wine," in a commoditized selling/buying market.)
    
    For example, most consumers' behavior likely shows they consider Lee and Wrangler jeans to be close enough in "whatever characteristics matter" that if one is notably less pricey than the other, they will buy the lower priced pair. In contrast, most consumers behavior likely shows they do not consider Lee or Wrangler jeans to be close substitutes for, say, True Religion jeans. Accordingly, they will buy either Lee/Wrangler jeans or they will buy True Religion jeans, and the price differential doesn't factor into the decision.
    
    • Those two consumer behavior patterns tell us several things:
      • Lee and Wrangler jeans are subject to low elasticity of demand with regard to one another.
      • True Religion jeans enjoy high elasticity of demand compared to Lee/Wrangler jeans, that is, consumers place a higher value on something other than price in deciding to buy True Religion jeans rather than Lee/Wrangler jeans.
    • Those same patterns tell us nothing about the independent price elasticity of demand of Lee, Wrangler or True Religion jeans.
      • We don't know from the above whether a change in TR jeans will or won't make consumers who were predisposed to buy TR jeans actually buy more TR jeans.
      • We don't know if the a change in Wrangler/Lee jeans price will motivate more or fewer sales of Lee/Wrangler jeans to consumers who were already going to buy Lee/Wrangler jeans.
  • Offer some intangible that is part of the customer's buying experience and that they value more than the lower price Walmart offers. This usually entails service or store atmosphere "superiority" over Walmart.

A monopoly is a market situation in which a single supplier makes an entire industry for a good or service.

Walmart is the largest supplier of retail company in the world. If you want to sell at Walmart, Walmart will dictate everything, INCLUDING how much they will pay you for your product. Monopoly.

1. Monopoly is not a market situation; it is a market structure. Market structure is part of a market situation; it is not the market situation.
2. Monopoly is a market structure characterized by a single seller of a unique product with no close substitutes. This is one of four basic market structures. The other three are perfect competition, oligopoly, and monopolistic competition. As the single seller of a unique good with no close substitutes, a monopoly has no competition.
   
   Walmart is not a monopoly. It is a monopolistic competitor. (see above)

Airospace Boeing.
Software. Microsoft.
Both of them dictate to their suppliers the exact same way WalMart does and price to the customers the exact same way.

You're trying to compare end-users with retail?

That is not at all the nature of the mistake the other poster made. The error s/he made is failure to recognize the distinction between oligopoly and monopolistic competition.

It's not cool to not know what you're talking about.
-- Barrack Obama​