Why Do Liberals Hate Wal Mart?

[red states rule]

I will never understand the left in this country. For some reason, the left hates Wal Mart. I really would like to know why.
Wal Mart makes huge sums of money for itself and the local, state, and federal government. It employs hundreds of thousands of people, and donates millions to charity.
Wal Mart provides working people what they need and a very affordable price.
Here are some possible reason why libs hate Wal Mart

Their non-union members are happy
Customer base probably voted for Bush
Their parking lot is full of SUVs
Customers watch Fox and NASCAR
They hate American corporate success

Anyone have any other possible reason?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

* They put mom and pop stores out of business
* They waste land
* Their stores, like most commercial construction since 1950, are eyesores
* Their stores lower property values, no one is particularly thrilled to have a Walmart build right next to them

I don't think Walmart is really good or evil exactly, they are only responding logically to the set of incentives they have been given. Most of the negatives about them (and I don't deny all of them) are actually due to perverse government incentives: land use restrictions, building codes, and especially "free" government roads. Socialists have a hard-on for massive public works projects such as the interstate highway system, but then they don't like the tacky automobile-centric growth that those subsidies enable. If they were serious about curbing suburban sprawl, they'd auction off every bit of government roads to private companies.

 

[red states rule]

In a free market system you either make it on your own or you don't. Wal Mart offers value and choice. If other stores cannot compete - to bad
Wal Mart provides more jobs then all the mom and pop shops combined.
Waste land? Would you rather it sit empty? When a Wal Mart goes up - more business pop up near it. Which creates more jobs and more tax money for the government
The stores are far from an eyestore. Wal Marts are clean and well lit. They have changed the way most chain stores looked when I was growing up.
I do not where you took economics but Wal Mart is a shot in the arm to property values. With over 100 million Americans walking into a Wal Mart every week, the growth around a Wal Mart is huge. With growth comes increased land values
As I said, I do not understand why the left hates Wal MArt. It has to be their workers are not union workers. The Dems miss all thast money they can steal from the workers union in the form of contributions

 

[Mariner]

That's exactly the issue, RSR. In a free market system with no controls, there would be no fish in any stream in America (all would be polluted by PCBs, mine tailings, and simple dumping of pollution). There would be no occupational health and safety rules. Employers could hire whomever they wanted, regardless of sex, age, race, etc. There would be no weekend. All these things are created by liberal concern for balancing the engine of capitalism with concern for its side effects.

Walmart pushes up against some of cherished liberal beliefs, which are generally liked by all Americans, in several ways, from the (lower) wages it pays its workers, to accusations of sexism in promotions, to providing minimal or no benefits in some markets (Walmart workers in China have greater benefits that some in America).

Think about it--in the old days, the largest employers (such as GM), protected by tariffs and stronger redistributive taxation, were able to provide true "head of household" wages and benefits. Walmart, the new largest employer, pays far less, and with almost no benefits.

To some extent, these changes are the result of globalization--cheap labor available around the world reduces workers' pay. But another big chunk of it comes from Republican/conservative unwillingness to recognize the downsides of unfettered capitalism.

Here's another issue with Walmart--in a dozen or so states, their workers are the single largest group of users of Medicaid services. In other words, all of us are subsidizing the company by paying its employees' health care costs--while competitors that actually try to provide health insurance to their employees, are outcompeted on price.

So, I don't shop at Walmart.

Mariner

 

[red states rule]

If Wal Mart is so bad, why do people work there? I shop Wal Mart every week. I see the same people working there week after week. They are not chained to their registers or their work area
I buy nearly everything from Wal Mart. Food, clothes, cleaning supplies, pet food, all at a fair price.
The bottom line is, those "cherished liberal beliefs" are falling into the dustbin of history. The big issue with libs is NO UNIONS
Unions have destroyed GM and the numbers of union workers if falling. The Democrat party can no longer steal unlimited amount of money from those workers (in dues the union bosses take fromt he workers) to finance their elections.
Yes free markets have no government controls. In did not work in the old Soviet Union and they will not work here.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

All those great GM benefits turned out to be untenable lies. That's what socialism in general is.

 

[red states rule]

All those great GM benefits turned out to be untenable lies. That's what socialism in general is.

People are starting to see unions, liberalism, and socialism are sure fire ways to destroy a business and the economy

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

I probably came across the wrong way there, so let me clarify. I don't have a problem with Walmart (or any private entity) doing what they want with their property. If it's a free market and they compete, they should be able to do what they want.

The trouble is, we really don't live in a free market. Walmart and other mega-box stores are dependent on high volume since their margins are so low, and how do you get large volumes of people? With "free" subsidized government roads of course. If you had a system of private free-market roads, you'd be paying per mile, and smaller scale close-by retail would be more attractive. Or, Walmart and other big box stores might have to pay a hefty chunk of change to a road company to help deal with the traffic problem they create.

Mom and Pop shops: I don't actually care who wins, I was just parroting other people's arguments

Waste land: I don't actually care, so long as your business model isn't subsidized by government (for the record, many localities have parking lot minimums in their building code, so you often see Walmarts and malls with parking lots that are never ever full. What a waste, thanks government regulations!)

I hate to say it, but their stores are an eyesore, just like most post-war architecture. If you want to see what a non-eyesore looks like, check out a town built pre-WWII. That's part of the reason for so much NIMBY-ism. People try and build nice houses, and then Walmarts, apartments, and other builders of concrete boxes try and move in next door. But again, this is a case of bad government regulations and incentives. Property taxes favor the cheapest possible buildings, and the federal tax code favors cheap disposable buildings.

The rest of your arguments are probably true, quite honestly.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I probably came across the wrong way there, so let me clarify. I don't have a problem with Walmart (or any private entity) doing what they want with their property. If it's a free market and they compete, they should be able to do what they want.

The trouble is, we really don't live in a free market. Walmart and other mega-box stores are dependent on high volume since their margins are so low, and how do you get large volumes of people? With "free" subsidized government roads of course. If you had a system of private free-market roads, you'd be paying per mile, and smaller scale close-by retail would be more attractive. Or, Walmart and other big box stores might have to pay a hefty chunk of change to a road company to help deal with the traffic problem they create.

Mom and Pop shops: I don't actually care who wins, I was just parroting other people's arguments

Waste land: I don't actually care, so long as your business model isn't subsidized by government (for the record, many localities have parking lot minimums in their building code, so you often see Walmarts and malls with parking lots that are never ever full. What a waste, thanks government regulations!)

I hate to say it, but their stores are an eyesore, just like most post-war architecture. If you want to see what a non-eyesore looks like, check out a town built pre-WWII. That's part of the reason for so much NIMBY-ism. People try and build nice houses, and then Walmarts, apartments, and other builders of concrete boxes try and move in next door. But again, this is a case of bad government regulations and incentives. Property taxes favor the cheapest possible buildings, and the federal tax code favors cheap disposable buildings.

The rest of your arguments are probably true, quite honestly.

Yes. WalMart is unfairly EXTERNALIZING the cost of transportation to their store. You're a freak.

 

[red states rule]

Wal Mart wants to sell gas below their COST. Gues who is stopping them? The government and enviro wackos who say it is "unfair"

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Yes. WalMart is unfairly EXTERNALIZING the cost of transportation to their store. You're a freak.

Walmart is simply being smart and taking advantage of the government monopoly on roads. Could you argue against the part you disagree with, instead of just restating my argument and tossing out an insult?

Wal Mart wants to sell gas below their COST. Gues who is stopping them? The government and enviro wackos who say it is "unfair"

Do you have a source for this? I believe you, but I was just wondering why some of these stores didn't sell gas below cost to get people inside the store, and what specific law prevents it. It works for convenience stores, and could probably work for Walmart. I would be thrilled to get gas below cost. This reminds me of something I read somewhere: Price it too high, and you're gouging. Price it too low, and you're dumping.

 

[red states rule]

Walmart is simply being smart and taking advantage of the government monopoly on roads. Could you argue against the part you disagree with, instead of just restating my argument and tossing out an insult?



Do you have a source for this? I believe you, but I was just wondering why some of these stores didn't sell gas below cost to get people inside the store, and what specific law prevents it. It works for convenience stores, and could probably work for Walmart. I would be thrilled to get gas below cost. This reminds me of something I read somewhere: Price it too high, and you're gouging. Price it too low, and you're dumping.

http://wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/01oct/ENTR_walmart.htm
Wal-Mart Pays at the Pump
Discount Giant Tangles With Small Gas-Station Owners-and Loses

By Russell Gold and Ann Zimmerman
Staff Reporters of The Wall Street Journal

By any measure, Wal-Mart Stores is a business colossus. Its annual revenue of nearly $200 billion makes it one of the largest companies in the world, in the same league as General Motors and ExxonMobil. Its market power and pricing strategy are enough to frighten many small businesses.

But as a recent skirmish over gasoline prices proves, Wal-Mart isn't invincible. When businesses compete, the bigger contender doesn't always win. And sometimes, the consumer doesn't either.

This spring, as fuel prices zoomed to their peak, Wal-Mart wanted to use inexpensive gasoline to lure motorists to its new parking-lot gas pumps. But in order to sell lower-cost gas, Wal-Mart first needed to overturn laws in many states that require a certain markup above cost at the pump.

In the chummy world of statehouse lobbying, Wal-Mart was no match for an entrenched network of independent gas-station operators and allies who have been around longer, made more campaign contributions and developed deeper relationships with legislators. Although hardly small itself, the gas-station lobby in state after state successfully painted Wal-Mart as a giant intent on wiping out the small-business man by undercutting prices. When all was said and done, the nation's largest retailer couldn't claim a single victory.

In fact, Wal-Mart actually ended up worse off in Minnesota, where legislators passed a tough new law marking up gas at least eight cents a gallon above its cost and allowing state officials to padlock the pumps of any violator. Maryland strengthened its existing law by requiring the state comptroller to investigate allegations of below-cost gas sales within three days. Lawmakers in Florida, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Tennessee and Washington all kept the status quo.

"I think the mistake we made is that we didn't start developing relationships a long time ago," says Jay Allen, Wal-Mart's vice president of corporate affairs. "A crisis is a bad time to develop friends."

No Advantage

While the markup laws don't stop Wal-Mart from building gas stations, they do cancel out the marketing advantage it counted on by preventing it from offering customers a cheaper price. Twelve states have laws that specifically ban below-cost gas sales or require a minimum markup. Another 23 states have general "fair marketing" laws that ban below-cost sales of merchandise or "predatory pricing." The laws grew out of Depression-era efforts to protect consumers and small businesses from monopolies that slashed prices just long enough to drive competitors out of business, then raised them to fatten profits.

Supporters of the gas-markup laws argue that they're still needed to protect smaller, independently owned gas stations, and that more stations ensure competition and keep prices low. Otherwise, says Dan Gilligan, president of the Petroleum Marketers Association of America in Arlington, Va., large retailers would sell gasoline below cost for just long enough to crush rivals. "When the competition is gone, they are free to exact whatever price they want," he says.

Wal-Mart argues that the laws are arbitrary and unfair, preventing it from offering its advertised "everyday low prices." They rarely needed to be enforced until about two years ago, when Wal-Mart and other discount and supermarket chains began to more aggressively open gas stations. By the end of this year, Wal-Mart hopes to have stations at about 520 of its large discount centers-25% of its total stores-and nearly all of its 480 Sam's Club outlets.

Wal-Mart and Murphy Oil Corp., which has an agreement to operate stations at Wal-Marts in 21 states, started getting hit with lawsuits almost immediately that alleged they were selling gas below cost. Murphy's pump prices actually often match prevailing prices in the area, but customers who use pre-paid Wal-Mart gift cards get a discount of several pennies per gallon, which can drop the price below the wholesale cost.

In Alabama, a federal judge in May issued an injunction barring Murphy from selling below cost at 25 Wal-Marts in the state. The judge ordered Murphy to raise its prices by at least seven cents a gallon.

Rather than fight the battle one lawsuit at a time, Wal-Mart and Murphy decided to go to statehouses and try to repeal the markup laws. One of the first targets was Florida, where Wal-Mart hired its first full-time statehouse lobbyist anywhere and recruited the local AARP chapter, the state automobile club and others to form the Coalition for Lower Gas Prices. But they were outnumbered by a better-connected group of gas retailers, and a bill to repeal the markup law died in a Senate committee in April. A month later, Wal-Mart had another setback when Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura signed that state's markup law.

'Great Opportunity'

It looked like Wal-Mart had a chance in Wisconsin, where the Senate majority leader, Chuck Chvala, had quietly tacked a repeal of the markup law onto the state budget bill. (The impetus, Mr. Chvala says was a personal experience: a convenience-store chain sued an independent gas station where his wife fills up her car.)

It seemed "a great opportunity," recalls Bob McAdam, Wal-Mart's director of state and local government relations. So Wal-Mart quickly hired two lobbyists to line up other support. The company then formed a Wisconsin version of its Coalition for Lower Gas Prices, urged shoppers in its stores to sign repeal petitions and circulated a study that said Wisconsin gas prices were two to three cents a gallon higher than in Minnesota. Radio commercials asked listeners to help "get rid of this maximum rip-off by repealing the minimum markup."

The gas-station lobby-including state associations representing petroleum marketers, convenience stores and grocers-responded in kind. Its coalition, Mainstreet Businesses for Fair Competition, circulated fliers urging lawmakers to stop "national superstores" that want to "muscle out the competition." The coalition hand-delivered to legislators its own study; its conclusion: States with markup laws have lower gas prices on average.

Wal-Mart grabbed the early momentum, but the petroleum marketers and grocers-whose small-town members often operate a couple of gas pumps-were better known in Madison, the state capital. In 1999 and 2000, the two business groups spent a combined $286,745 on lobbying; Wal-Mart and Murphy spent nothing.

In the end, Wal Mart got what it paid for. Sen. Chvala and other statehouse leaders ultimately backed down on the repeal, saying they needed to get other aspects of the state budget done.

Wal-Mart vows to keep fighting next year-and to reverse a perception that it was a David-and-Goliath battle-the small gas-station owner against giant Wal-Mart. "It's exactly the opposite," says Mr. McAdam. "They are the big guys in Madison and we're the little guys."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Walmart is simply being smart and taking advantage of the government monopoly on roads. Could you argue against the part you disagree with, instead of just restating my argument and tossing out an insult?

Yes. I disagree that "Walmart takes advantage of the roads" is any sort of valid criticism of walmart.

 

[red states rule]

Yes. I disagree that "Walmart takes advantage of the roads" is any sort of valid criticism of walmart.

Libs look for things to be offended by, look for reason to attack Pres Bush, and will blame anything on Wal Mart
The day after Thanksgiving sales were great to watch. Seeing hundreds of thousands of people pouring into Wal Mart, spending money, and helping the economy grow was nice to see
Knowing the libs were gritting their teeth and cussing about what they were watching was an early Christmas present

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Libs look for things to be offended by, look for reason to attack Pres Bush, and will blame anything on Wal Mart
The day after Thanksgiving sales were great to watch. Seeing hundreds of thousands of people pouring into Wal Mart, spending money, and helping the economy grow was nice to see
Knowing the libs were gritting their teeth and cussing about what they were watching was an early Christmas present

Their key word is "externality".

 

[MtnBiker]

Here's another issue with Walmart--in a dozen or so states, their workers are the single largest group of users of Medicaid services. In other words, all of us are subsidizing the company by paying its employees' health care costs--while competitors that actually try to provide health insurance to their employees, are outcompeted on price.

Hmmmmm.........
What about this?

We are taking people off public assistance programs: According to a survey by The Segmentation Company, 7% of associates join Wal-Mart on Medicaid. Only 3% of associates remain on Medicaid after working for Wal-Mart for two years.

and

In some markets, premiums for the new Value Plans are as low as $11 per month and 30 cents more per day for children, no matter how many children an associate insures. Nationwide, every eligible associate – both full- and part-time - has access to individual coverage for no more than $23 per month and 50 cents more per day for children. Family coverage starts at $65 per month.

http://www.walmartfacts.com/newsdesk/article.aspx?id=1625

 

[nt250]

The article you posted explains why.

I'm not a liberal, but I hate Wal*Mart.

I'm from Rhode Island and my hatred of Wal*Mart is more personal than political. You see, Wal*Mart killed Ann & Hope.

Have you ever heard of Ann & Hope?

Ann & Hope was the very first discount department store in the country. Sam Walton came to Rhode Island and he was given a tour of Ann & Hope's operations. He used what he learned to make Wal*Mart the behomoth it is today.

The Warwick Plaza in Warwick RI was dying. There was the old Warwick Cinema, a great old movie theater that had a huge screen and a scalloped curtain that would rise as the movie started playing. I walked to many a movie there when I was a kid. There was a Grants. An Addams Drug store, a bar, a Weintraubs, and a Big G supermarket.

The cinema, Weintraub's, Grants. They all went belly up.

So the city made a deal with Wal*Mart and the hole plaza was leveled. A new Wal*Mart was built in it's place.

The Warwick Ann & Hope was about 3 miles up Post Road.

Within 5 years of Wal*Mart coming into New England Ann & Hope was history.

Plus, their stores are really dirty and the check out lines are awful. Wal*Mart sucks.

 

[red states rule]

If Ann and Hope cannot compete, that is not Wal Marts' fault

We wither have a free enterprise system or we don't. The market determines which companies survive and which ones do not

 

[Dr Grump]

If Ann and Hope cannot compete, that is not Wal Marts' fault

We wither have a free enterprise system or we don't. The market determines which companies survive and which ones do not

using that logic the world should just run at the lowest common denominator. If they could, some people would eat McDonalds every day of the week and watch Jerry Springer.

 

[nt250]

If Ann and Hope cannot compete, that is not Wal Marts' fault

We either have a free enterprise system or we don't. The market determines which companies survive and which ones do not

Yeah, I know. I told you. It's more personal than anything else.

But they really do suck. How does someone in a wheel chair get around in a Wal*Mart? There's so much crap everywhere. Just walking through a Wal*Mart is a major fucking ordeal.

And you can't see anything. The ceilings are low, there's merchandise stacked to the nines. And it's dirty. The store in Warwick was brand new, and it looked dirty the day it opened. There's too much crap. Next time you go into a Wal*Mart look at the floors.

You ever tried to buy shoes at Wal*Mart? They have the worst fucking shoe department I've ever seen.

And the check out counters. Is it at all possible to move any slower than a Wal*Mart check out line? I don't think so.

Wal*Mart sells crap. The fact that people are willing to buy it because it's cheap crap, doesn't speak well for the people who shop there.