Why Do Liberals Hate Wal Mart?

[5stringJeff]

Can't wait for the commodities brokers to get their hands on heart surgery! Energy trading was a huge part of the deregulation of the energy industry. And, now we're seeing $70-a-barrel oil due to what? The laws of supply and demand? No. An increase in production costs? No. What then? Speculating. Pure, unadulterated, money changing. I say we throw them out of the temple.

So go buy some oil futures, if there's such good money in it.

I think you're underestimating the amount of regulation in the food business... but I'll admit they don't check on the illegal immigrants at the slaughterhouses in Nebraska very often.

All in all, there are very few regulations on food production, food prices, etc. All they have to do is give you nutritional info and tell you what's in it. And guess what? Very few people in America go hungry.

Oh, and good call on the deregulation of the airlines... those same airlines gave us the security in place on 9/11. We left it up to the airlines because no company would ever allow air travel to be unsafe because it would hurt their image and, in turn, their profits. Worked great! Thank you deregulation!

I'm talking about prices and choices to the consumer, not security. And to improve security, we could have passed tighter security regulations for the airlines to implement without restricting when and where the airlines did business.

Tell that to the TSA.

Thousands Standing Around? The ones who insist that a 72-year-old grandmother is a threat to safe flying and deserves a strip search, while Ahmed bin-Mohammed with dynamite in his backpack can just walk on through because they don't want to offend someone by racial profiling? Gimme a break.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

California's so-called energy "deregulation" was pretty half-assed and pretty much guaranteed shortages. Other states like Texas did it right, and never had any problems with blackouts. We've also seen our bills go down due to competition.

If the airlines were truly free, pilots would have been packing heat a long time ago, and 9/11 might have never happened. Furthermore, in a free society, a private company would be able to openly profile certain categories of passenger--for example, spaced-out, nervous, young muslim males; rather than elderly asian grandmothers. You can't seriously believe that a slip in security is due to non-interest on the part of airlines--they have more reason to care than anyone.

 

[Abbey Normal]

It's simple. Libs hate all that filthy capitalist lucre.

 

[Hobbit]

There are plenty of reasons to hate Wal-Mart, from their declining quality to their borderline anticompetitive practices within the past decade to the strongarm tactics, reminiscent of Microsoft, that they use to drive down their supply costs. That's not why they hate Wal-Mart though, as they've been hating Wal-Mart since before these things happened (after Sam Walton died).

Libs hate Wal-Mart because libs are backwards in their love/hate choices. First off, libs typically hate their employers, typically for making them work. That's right, their employers give them enough money to pay all of their bills in exchange for a bit of manual labor, and they hate their employers, complaining not just for having to work too hard, but for being underpaid (hello! If you're underpaid, I'm sure there would be another place that pays better). Libs, however, love the government. This is the same government that, all in all, claims 40% of their paycheck and uses the money to drive up the cost of goods and services and drive down the money on a paycheck with payroll taxes and corporate income taxes.

That being said, libs hate Wal-Mart like they do any other corporation. First off, libs can only think zero-sum. If Wal-Mart is so cheap, it has to be getting those savings from somewhere, presumably from the 'poor.' So, Wal-Mart offers tons of jobs, decent benefits (though those, too, have gone downhill since Sam Walton died), and prices that poor people can easily afford, and the libs hate them for it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I like Wal-Mart.

I think it's because I've shopped their since I was little.

During my three years in Alabama, we probably went at least once every week or two.

I always liked and always trusted them. Indeed the brand reminds me a bit of my early years.

Now what really sucks is Target. It's smaller, starker and quite frankly, the bright red color everywhere gives me a headache. Wal-Marts is more open, more relaxing, and is more of a serene blue. Plus they have old people to say hello to you at the door.

That's my personal reflections.

From a less personal stance I see this. Wal-Mart makes some 8 billion dollars per year in profits. That's right, not revenue (which is something close to 300 billion) that's profits, the amount of money they put in the bank. If I were Wal-Mart, which I wish I were, then I think I would have to do better than pay my workers at 8 dollars an hour, especially with that kind of money. And instead of only allowing people to work for 20-30 hours a week, which allows them to be counted as "part time," and therefore not subject to the company health plan, I'd let people work a full 40 hours so they can feed their families and not have to worry if Billy has to have his tonsils removed. If I were Wal-Mart, I wouldn't use my bulk to force suppliers to undercut their prices and barely earn a living, and I wouldn't go directly to the sweatshops in Malaysia to get my products, and thereby cut out even the middleman. For that matter, I'd start to actually buy American made products with an eye on the long term survival of the manufacturing capacity of this country, rather than a short term boast to profits. I'd also keep some of the profits in local banks, where it could be reninvested in the local economy, and not send it all back to Bentonville, never to see whatever small town again. That's just me though.

 

[red states rule]

Libs now have another reason to hate Wal Mart. I wonder how many copies of Ann Coulters new book Wal Mart will sell.

 

[Hobbit]

I like Wal-Mart.

I think it's because I've shopped their since I was little.

During my three years in Alabama, we probably went at least once every week or two.

I always liked and always trusted them. Indeed the brand reminds me a bit of my early years.

Now what really sucks is Target. It's smaller, starker and quite frankly, the bright red color everywhere gives me a headache. Wal-Marts is more open, more relaxing, and is more of a serene blue. Plus they have old people to say hello to you at the door.

That's my personal reflections.

From a less personal stance I see this. Wal-Mart makes some 8 billion dollars per year in profits. That's right, not revenue (which is something close to 300 billion) that's profits, the amount of money they put in the bank. If I were Wal-Mart, which I wish I were, then I think I would have to do better than pay my workers at 8 dollars an hour, especially with that kind of money. And instead of only allowing people to work for 20-30 hours a week, which allows them to be counted as "part time," and therefore not subject to the company health plan, I'd let people work a full 40 hours so they can feed their families and not have to worry if Billy has to have his tonsils removed. If I were Wal-Mart, I wouldn't use my bulk to force suppliers to undercut their prices and barely earn a living, and I wouldn't go directly to the sweatshops in Malaysia to get my products, and thereby cut out even the middleman. For that matter, I'd start to actually buy American made products with an eye on the long term survival of the manufacturing capacity of this country, rather than a short term boast to profits. I'd also keep some of the profits in local banks, where it could be reninvested in the local economy, and not send it all back to Bentonville, never to see whatever small town again. That's just me though.

Actually, all profits go to shareholders. Corporations are incapable of accumulating their own wealth. Shareholders are scattered around the country.

Where I do agree with you, though, is that their business practices have gotten scummy and slightly anti-competitive. When Sam Walton was still alive, this didn't happen.

 

[red states rule]

I wonder how many libs have Wal Mart stock in their 401K?

 

[Mr.Conley]

But who are the largest shareholders? The Walton's in Bentonville. Then the funds on Wall Street. There are a lot of shareholders scattered across the country. But they don't own a significant percentage of the company.
Here are a few studies I found about the economic impact of WalMart on the local community:

http://129.3.20.41/eps/lab/papers/0303/0303002.pdf- this study, by a Emek Basker of the University of Missouri, examines Walmarts effects on the local job market. The study determined that WalMart brings about 100 new jobs to a community, but that half that number is reduced when other retailors close. The town still gains 50 (lower paying) jobs.

http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1243 Here is a study by Jerry Hausman of MIT and Ephraim Leibtag of the USDA about WalMarts affect on consumer welfare

http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/lowwage/walmart.pdf A study of WalMarts effect on tax revenues and the local economy by Arindrajit Dube and Ken Jacobs at UC Berkeley

 

[red states rule]

It seems to be the case, the companies libs demonize are the ones they own stock in

Haliburton and, oh my, Dems on Capital Hill, Michael Moore, and others own the stock

Boeing, Exxon, Microsoft, Pfizer, and Wal Mart are the whipping posts for the left, yet they have no problem using them to finance their retirement plans

 

[Mariner]

Your comments don't make much sense to me.

How exactly is it "ludicrous" that PCB's dumped by GE have made striped bass in the Hudson River inedible? GE has admitted it. I didn't think there was any argument on this point--it's a classic case of capitalism doing its thing--making money. It's up to regulators to make sure that while capitalists make money, they don't ruin our fishing--or kill our mine workers--or collude with each other to raise prices.

Equally strange is your idea that if someone didn't like a job that required weekend work, they should simply get another one. I was referring to the history of the development of the concept of the weekend, which was created by the force of union activism and anti-trust legislation against monopoly companies run by the "robber barons," mega-capitalists of the early 20th century. These people weren't especially interested in their employees' leisure time.

I think you need to read a little history about just how brutal work conditions were before health and safety regulations, and before unionization gave employees some real power to negotiate with their bosses. (I admit that unions now, in many ways, have outlived their usefulness and often do more harm than good.)

Actually, you don't need to go very far back in history. You can look at the 30+ miners who died last year in two mine disasters, both of which would have been avoided with better regulations and better enforcement of regulations already on the books. Fining a multi-billion dollar company $100 isn't going to force it to ensure its workers' safety. Are you saying all miners should just walk off the job? Maybe they want to. Maybe they don't have so many other choices. You seem to take the view that the company is always right.

As for your ultra-libertarian view that companies should be able to discriminate on the basis of sex, race, religion, etc., all I can say is that it truly puts you on the fringe. Without laws to enforce such nondiscrimination, black people, women, the elderly, disabled people, etc., would face massive obstacles to advancement. White men would run everything--oh yeah, just as they used to, before these laws were put into place.

OK, we end Medicaid. So the poor family down the street has a kid with diabetes. How is this family suddenly, magically, going to be able to afford the $2000 a month they need for private health insurance? Where are they getting a windfall from? Especially if you flat-tax them, as you've proposed elsewhere--you've now completely impoverished them. Oh, and of course in your world no insurance company would be obligated to serve a family with a sick child--companies could just skim the healthy patients and leave the rest to... what? die? How would your libertarian world deal with this issue?

Show me a country in the world where a middle class exists, with good health care and reasonable jobs, without massive government action to enforce a level playing field--there isn't one.

And explain why here in Taxachusetts, where we invest more heavily in our human capital, we're more prosperous, more safe, and apparently have better family values (lowest divorce rate in the country) than all the more libertarian, low-tax states that are closer to your ideas than mine? Why isn't Alabama kicking our butts?

RSR, Walmart has been a boon for American workers? Huh? For shoppers, yes, but how is it better to be employed by Walmart than at a mom and pop store that actually pays your health insurance? And what do you have to say about Walmart relying on Medicaid (i.e. your and my taxes) to provide health insurance for so many of its workers?

Mariner.

 

[red states rule]

If you want socialism, government running all the corporations, and government deciding what your standard of living shall be; it exists

It is big, cold, east of here, and alot of people named Ivan telling you what to do

 

[Mr.Conley]

It's up to regulators to make sure that while capitalists make money, they don't ruin our fishing--or kill our mine workers--or collude with each other to raise prices.

Good point. In China, over 5,000 miners die each yearin mining accidents. The companies have no regulations that enforce workers safety, and they have an inexhastable supply of workers to replace the fallen. Sure, workers could try and find other work, but
1. There are more people then jobs, people compete for work. Companies don't compete for people (except at the highest levels)
2. If people don't work, they can't feed the kids.
Because of that, these workers are literally slaughtered

It is big, cold, east of here, and alot of people named Ivan telling you what to do

You must mean Belarus.

And explain why here in Taxachusetts, where we invest more heavily in our human capital, we're more prosperous, more safe, and apparently have better family values (lowest divorce rate in the country) than all the more libertarian, low-tax states that are closer to your ideas than mine? Why isn't Alabama kicking our butts?

Do you have a link?

Alabama Sucks (at least the southern part, except Orange Beach, but everywhere else south of Montgomery)

 

[Hobbit]

And explain why here in Taxachusetts, where we invest more heavily in our human capital, we're more prosperous, more safe, and apparently have better family values (lowest divorce rate in the country) than all the more libertarian, low-tax states that are closer to your ideas than mine? Why isn't Alabama kicking our butts?

More prosperous? Northwest Arkansas has the greatest per capita income of any other like sized region in the country. Helps to be headquarters to Tyson, Wal-Mart, Simmons Food, and Allen Canning Company, among others. Atlanta has Coca-Cola, Turner, Delta, and a whole slew of others. What major corporations are based in MA?

More safe? How exactly would you define that? New England seems to have more traffic accidents. I seem to recall the most accident prone dynasty in American history (Kennedy anyone?) being from Massachussetts. Work accidents? I don't seem to ever recall Georgia or Arkansas being a big source of work-related accidents. Maybe more fun-related accidents, but only because we know how to REALLY have fun. I'd really like to see what statistic makes New England 'safer.'

So, apparently, the divorce rate is the only indicator of family values? Bullcrap. First off, the divorce rate statistic is thrown off by the fact that so many people in that state don't really see the need to marry (unless you're gay). Second, what about other indicators? High school plays in the South include things like "Don't Drink the Water," "The Odd Couple," and "West Side Story." High schools in Massachussetts include (true story) "The Vagina Monologues." You could also check such things as teen pregnancy, parental responsibility, and hundreds of other indicators outside of the stupid divorce rate.

I think your stats are off.

 

[Abbey Normal]

Libs now have another reason to hate Wal Mart. I wonder how many copies of Ann Coulters new book Wal Mart will sell.

:rotflmao:

 

[red states rule]

:rotflmao:

I was right. When I made my weekly trip to Wal Mart - there was a nice display of Anns book "Godless - The Church of Liberalism"

One of the stockers told me this was the THIRD time they had to fill the display and MORE books were on order

My how this will piss off the libs.

 

[acludem]

First of all, I need to preface my remarks by telling you I live in Wal-Mart city. The two riches families in my town, the Kroenke's and the Laurie's, are loaded with Wal-Mart money, the Stan Kroenke (owner of the Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche and Pepsi Arena, also part owner of the St. Louis Rams) is married to Bud Walton's daughter Ann, Bill Laurie, former owner of the St. Louis Blues, is married to Bud Walton's daughter, Nancy.

I want to point out that Wal-Mart has been repeatedly cited for hiring illegal immigrants, something that you anti-immigration conservatives ought to love. Wal-Mart replaces higher paying jobs with better benefits at other retailers they put out of business with their cheap wage, poor benefit jobs. Wal-Mart also expects the local community to pay for the roads they want, the infrastructure, etc. from tax dollars and through court-imposed TDD Districts. Wal-Mart will stop at nothing to put their competition out of business even if it means losing money for a while. Predatory pricing is a large part of their corporate philosophy.

Another side effect of the Wal-Martization of America is the loss of high paying manufacturing jobs that are sent overseas because companies can't otherwise meet Wal-Mart's price demands.

Wal-Martization has cost millions of manufacturing jobs, taken many good paying retail jobs and replaced them with low-paying jobs, closed thousands of small businesses, and essentially eliminated once-thriving main streets in small-town America.

acludem

 

[red states rule]

It is called capitalism.

The real reason libs hate Wal Mart is because they do not have union employees

This is preventing libs from putting their hands of hundreds of millions of dollars in union contributions

Of course, libs do not mention it comes from the workers pay check (a hidden and unlisted tax)

This economy was changing from a manufacturing economy to a service economy long before Wal Mart became the giant it is today

 

[acludem]

Capitalism implies competition, Wal-Mart hates capitalism, that's why they always seek (and often receive) tax breaks and taxpayer funded infrastructure, that way they can set everything up so that noone has any chance to compete but them. That's not capitalism, that's fascism.

acludem

 

[red states rule]

Capitalism implies competition, Wal-Mart hates capitalism, that's why they always seek (and often receive) tax breaks and taxpayer funded infrastructure, that way they can set everything up so that noone has any chance to compete but them. That's not capitalism, that's fascism.

acludem

Wal Mart does not force anyone to shop in one of their stores. People go their by chiooice. I thiought libs supported choice - or does that apply only to the murder of unborn babies?

100 million people walk into a Wal Mart to buy what they need. Wal Mart is a blessing to the working class. I thought libs wanted to help the working people of America - or by helping do you mean taking 30% of their income in taxes?