Walmart is so evil satan just shakes his head in disgust

[Patroklos]

at the time those plans were set up, the future changes in the size of the big three work force were not expected.

I don't think that is nessecarily true, but you can simply put mechanisms in place to deal with that as opposed to say, pretending nothing has changed like the unions/management.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva

Because we'd all be better off paying higher prices at inefficient local retailers, and because we're forced to shop at Wal-Mart even if we value the existence of local retailers

To some extent we are. There are considerable economies of scale in local retail. I may want to shop at a local retailer, and may not be able to, cause none exists in certain categories. Even IF all my neighbors and I had a preference to have the option to shop at local retail, we might have to make a formal agreement to do so. I suspect the transaction costs of doing that are rather high.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva

Because we'd all be better off paying higher prices at inefficient local retailers, and because we're forced to shop at Wal-Mart even if we value the existence of local retailers

How can you celebrate them providing employment, and at the same time claim theyre more efficient? You do realize that their efficiency largely consists of their providing LESS employment than the local retailers, who were more labor intensive, IE inefficient.

Now in a full employment economy that shouldnt be a bad thing - the released labor will find higher and better uses. But we really should be celebrating Walmart only for providing retail services more efficiently, not for doing that AND creating employment.

BTW, local retailers have positive externalities, IMO. A class of local pillars of the community, who support local charities, know peoples names, are involved in local politics, etc.

Theres also the sameness aspect. Im not so much dispirited to see a Walmart in MY community as when Im traveling, and I realize that the commercial areas look more or less alike across the entire country. I have to remind my kid that there was once a time when neighborhoods had their own stores, when each city had its own department store, when the personality of the place and of the business community were more closely tied.

Im not sure that more cheap toys is really worth it.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
How can you celebrate them providing employment, and at the same time claim theyre more efficient? You do realize that their efficiency largely consists of their providing LESS employment than the local retailers, who were more labor intensive, IE inefficient.

Now in a full employment economy that shouldnt be a bad thing - the released labor will find higher and better uses. But we really should be celebrating Walmart only for providing retail services more efficiently, not for doing that AND creating employment.

But they can provide more explicit employment if you count teh implicit "labour" that shoppers would otherwise spend going from store to store to buy their stuff vs. getting it all at one place. Also, it's not necessarily a zero-sum thing - consumers may end up spending more on their shopping (even if teh unit prices of their purchases are less) because of teh convenience premium they "earn" from shopping there.

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Consumers are mostly unaware of the true harm walmart does shiva.

I won't buy anything from that piss hole and encourage others to do the same.

QFT

Shiva,

Let's see if I understand your worker argument -- WalMart, a rich multinational corporation is allowed to exploit a foreign workforce in amassing huge capital. They are allowed to do this because if WalMart wasn't employing those people, they wouldn't be employed at all. In other words -- sweatshops

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by LordShiva


But they can provide more explicit employment if you count teh implicit "labour" that shoppers would otherwise spend going from store to store to buy their stuff vs. getting it all at one place. Also, it's not necessarily a zero-sum thing - consumers may end up spending more on their shopping (even if teh unit prices of their purchases are less) because of teh convenience premium they "earn" from shopping there.

first of all, Walmart certainly didnt invent the notion of the general store - we've had ""five and dimes" in this country for generations - and department stores go back over 120 years, IIUC. Second, one can walk between adjacent specialty stores about as easily as one can move across a Walmart - (though thanks to big box, there many fewer places where one can find such specialty stores closely adjacent.

Third, if you think Walmart is convenient and a time saver, I rather suspect you havent actually spent much time inside one.

I think the principle reason for shopping there is lower prices. Thats certainly the core of their advertising.

[Patroklos]

Let's see if I understand your worker argument -- WalMart, a rich multinational corporation is allowed to exploit a foreign workforce in amassing huge capital.

The goods come from the same place, and the workers who make them get paid the same wage, no matter who sells the goods in America.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Patroklos


The goods come from the same place, and the workers who make them get paid the same wage, no matter who sells the goods in America.

That's not quite true. Walmart exerts tremendous pressure on its suppliers to slash their prices so that Walmart can sell for less.

[snoopy369]

Walmart may well give more employment, locally; the savings come from global savings, ie cutting out middlemen by buying from large producers directly, and buying cheaper goods, and getting cost savings from buying in bulk (which doesn't cut employment at all!)...

Also, they save quite a lot of money on rent; the rent for a Walmart is far less that the various stores they supplant (and takes up less net space also). This means that the main person losing out is the evil landowner , but in some ways they actually benefit everyone here as the properties not used for less efficient stores are rented out to others for other uses, and at a slightly cheaper price (less competition).

So WalMart is a good thing from a communist anti-landowner point of view

[Patroklos]

That's not quite true. Walmart exerts tremendous pressure on its suppliers to slash their prices so that Walmart can sell for less.

All of which has zero to do with what Chinese slave laborers get for wages. Its simply the difference between what Walmart management and Chinese party cronies take home.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by DirtyMartini
Let's see if I understand your worker argument -- WalMart, a rich multinational corporation is allowed to exploit a foreign workforce in amassing huge capital. They are allowed to do this because if WalMart wasn't employing those people, they wouldn't be employed at all. In other words -- sweatshops

Working in a "sweatshop" > Starving

[Flubber]

Originally posted by snoopy369
1. This sounds reasonable... except for the legal fees

Not to quibble but its fees and other expenses. I wasn't clear how far the litigation went before the trucking company settled so its tough to tell if I think this is "too much" in fees or not. Also it is not hard at all to spend thousands and thousand of dollars on the medical reports alone. If it progressed very far at all I can easily see 100,000 in expenses


The reality is that personal injury lawyers take on contingency cases and it is double-edged. For every big windfall with little work there are other situations where you do a 6 week trial and end up getting essentially nothing ( client hid a key fact that alters the case completely). Sometimes the lawyers lose money since the client cannot afford to pay back those incurred expenses.

Overall this case picks at people's heartstrings since someone took money out of a brain injured person's hands. Since that someone is a massive corporation, thats all that some need to hear on the merits. Subrogation is actually pretty standard with insurance. All it simply means is that the insurance should pay your expenses regardless of fault. Their right is usually such that the insurer can then bring the action against the third party themselves to recover those costs if the insured does not do so.

This is standard and basic insurance law and is being applied ehre it seems by Walmart's insurer. So shame on Walmart for having standard health insurance

[Patroklos]

They wouldn't have this problem if they just didn't offer health insurance

[Arrian]

Subrogation is actually pretty standard with insurance. All it simply means is that the insurance should pay your expenses regardless of fault. Their right is usually such that the insurer can then bring the action against the third party themselves to recover those costs if the insured does not do so.

This is standard and basic insurance law and is being applied ehre it seems by Walmart's insurer. So shame on Walmart for having standard health insurance

Bingo.

It's a subro claim, plain and simple.

-Arrian

[DirtyMartini]

Originally posted by LordShiva




Working in a "sweatshop" > Starving

Granted.

But am I not, as the WalMart CEO, morally obligated to provide better than sweatshop conditions to the workers upon whose efforts I'm building my vast fortune? (I'm about to contradict this direct association with Walmart --> worker, but the general principle holds).

Patroklus,

You're right, other retailers sell stuff from China. However the WalMart business model forces their suppliers to lower the prices they receive for their goods in order to get shelf space in WalMart. This forces the factories overseas (to China) or the companies out of business -- their products replaced by Chinese imports. The cheap labor in China allows this shift. WalMart's domination of the market has the net effect of eliminating US companies and manufacturing jobs (which have decent pay/benefits) while creating poorly paying/no benefits jobs in China. WalMart, if they chose to, could refuse to do business with companies that expoited foreign laborers, instead they've created a system that promotes that practice.