tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post8974775563881010805..comments2023-07-09T01:48:47.511-06:00Comments on (usually barefoot) meg: Full page ad against Wal-Mart in todays NYTUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-85387129506987676542007-11-17T13:22:24.000-07:002007-11-17T13:22:24.000-07:00Howdy y'all! I am not a big Wal-Mart fan, but ...Howdy y'all! I am not a big Wal-Mart fan, but only beause I hate lines. I have no problem with a company such as Wal-Mart UNTIL they go ploitical and begin supporting anti-gun legislation, illegal immigration and other such issues. As long as they stay in the "retail" field and out of the "political" i can deal with them. Also, I don't deny them the right to buy and sell goods from China, however, if you are going to promote yourself as a "Sell American" company, then you should provide a much better selection of American goods.<br /><br />Worker - I take a great deal of issue with the Government making laws on how much you can earn. It is none of their business! Wal-Mart is a publicly traded company. They have shareholders and a Board. It is the shareholders who determine how much an CEO makes. If the shareholder is happy with it, then I have no business sticking my nose in it. If the shareholders are not happy with the CEOs perfomance, they can fire him. A CEO has worked hard to be a CEO, has gotten his education, in most cases started at the bottom, has initiative and drive and goes far. I had that same oppertunity. I chose a different route. That was not the CEOs fault but mine.<br />America and the Democrat party in particular have got to quit hating the rich man. Personnally, I have never been hired by a poor man. If we must dislike the wealthy, let us start with the "Hollywood Elites" who have done absolutely nothing to benefit this country. Who was most responsable for the growth of this country, Andrew Carnege or Sean Penn, Henry Ford or Danny Glover, Bill Gates or Suzan Serandon. Of all those I just mentioned, which provided Americans with more jobs and contributed more to our economy. We have got to get our heads screwed on right or we will wake up a Socialist country someday and soon. This is what redistribution of wealth leads too.<br />Sorry for jumping in without an invite. Everyone here has made some good points, I just don't agree with all of them.Robert Ditmorehttp://csasarge.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-14360146758377957522007-04-08T16:38:16.000-06:002007-04-08T16:38:16.000-06:00btw, wal-mart was recently in the paper for it'...btw, wal-mart was recently in the paper for it's new push to cut down on packaging in the products they sell. it's a great move on the part of wal-mart! when a corporation that big takes a stand on something like this, it can have wide-spread positive repercussions (in the same way that these large companies can have wide-spread negative repercussions). <br /><br />just thought i'd add that in. i've been meaning to mention it since i saw it in the NYT this week.Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-64245163800273648312007-04-08T12:30:42.000-06:002007-04-08T12:30:42.000-06:00ps
see the film on "Independent Lens" th...ps<br />see the film on "Independent Lens" this week - please see this -<br />"China Blue" by Teddy Bear Films.<br /><br />This writer, Meg, is making important points. These are old and well established arguments and workers have an uphill battle for 200 years in this country to be treated with dignity and respect. Read how the earliest mill owners in New England would have "worked" people (children included) MORE than 13 hours per day, if they thought the cost of gas lamps was worth the outlay! But, fortunately, for the workers, oil wasn't cheap enough even then to work the people into even earlier graves! <br />Read about the Shirt Waist Factory working women who were locked into the factory and died in a fire or leapt out to die on the pavement... while the corporation never lost more than a moment's glitch to set up and carry-on making profits! It never was put out of business (NY early 20th c). <br />READ, READ, READ - or - if you can afford to, travel and see the poor at work all around the globe. Realize that out of desperation, people do many odd things to survive. But: why are we all functioning "out of desperation" when there are so many global resources, money, wealth... ?<br />Forget fearing "titles" like socialism! Just think about why working isn't enough to give us rich communities and beautiful healthy worry-free lives??L Mhttp://workerl.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-18478356804460999832007-04-08T12:23:52.000-06:002007-04-08T12:23:52.000-06:00I have a question -
What do Wall-Mart CEOs earn?
...I have a question - <br />What do Wall-Mart CEOs earn?<br />What if prices were slightly higher - better goods stocked and sold, but, primarily, laws stated that no Board member or executive can earn more than - say - 10x their lowest paid employees? <br /><br />What we have with corporations is socialism - for the rich! The communities share the burden of their establishment to do business (driveways, roads, foodstamps, medicare) but the profits are only disbursed capitalistically - among the owners. <br /><br />Workers in and out of the corporations do not see "rewards" for their efforts - all of us simply scrape by in a global culture of making top execs wealthier and workers poorer, no matter where they work and what percentage of their income it takes to "get by" - ie. exist rather than live.L Mhttp://workerl.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-17864988549823601982005-04-23T18:34:55.000-06:002005-04-23T18:34:55.000-06:00Excellent on the review. I look forward to reading...Excellent on the review. I look forward to reading the review and maybe the book, time allowing.Darryl Piercehttp://mcpierce.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-40590932452120335612005-04-23T18:32:10.000-06:002005-04-23T18:32:10.000-06:00this was supposed to be a bash against the America...this was supposed to be a bash against the American culture, not against Wal-Mart. <br /><br />i'm working feverishly on my "in sam we trust" review, btw. i'm hoping to publish it tonight.Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-87830980266069174522005-04-23T16:38:14.000-06:002005-04-23T16:38:14.000-06:00Wow, now it's really going into a bashing situ...Wow, now it's <em>really</em> going into a bashing situation. Is there anything that could be done by Walmart that wouldn't be considered a Bad Thing(tm)?Darryl Piercehttp://mcpierce.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-80132118879808557352005-04-23T16:11:41.000-06:002005-04-23T16:11:41.000-06:00ah yes. feeding right into the american consumer ...ah yes. feeding right into the american consumer mentality that having more and more and more for less and less and less is what life is all about.Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-89348809601305276252005-04-23T14:52:53.000-06:002005-04-23T14:52:53.000-06:00Why should they sell it for more if they can attra...Why should they sell it for more if they can attract a greater number of customers by selling it for less? You do understand that profit is maximized not on the profit of a single items but on the profit of selling more items at a slightly reduced price. Walmart has found the <em>optimum</em> margin for making a profit by lower prices enough to increase their consumer volume and thereby generating a <b>huge</b> profit. That's how business works. <br /><br />You say "they can sell it for $25 or $20". Can they? Have you actually examined their profit function? For every dollar they increase the retail price of a product, they decrease the number of units they will actually sell to consumers. If they increase the cost by 100-150% then they are going to <em>significantly</em> affect the number of units that are actually sold. <br /><br />A good chunk of the purchases might be from people who wouldn't buy the product for $20 but would be willing to part with $10 or $15 for it. Raising the price will have a negative impact on sales, which is an economic axiom. Simply saying "they could raise their price, so why don't they?" ignores how economics works and takes an overly simplistic view of their actual profit and margins.Darryl Piercehttp://mcpierce.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-2635127676869870642005-04-23T14:25:53.000-06:002005-04-23T14:25:53.000-06:00Mainly because Walmart is so hellbent on a pricing...Mainly because Walmart is so hellbent on a pricing race to the bottom that it's really competing only against its own past, at this point.<br /><br />If Sears and Macy sell an item for $50 and Ross sells it for $30 (which is basically the case, in my town), Walmart can sell it for $25, or $20; they don't have to sell it for $15 or $10.D Birchallhttp://danbirchall.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-14767455818100730202005-04-23T12:44:53.000-06:002005-04-23T12:44:53.000-06:00Then the company has a very flimsy business plan i...Then the company has a very flimsy business plan in the first place and should retool or it deserves to die off anyways.<br />Betty Leehttp://bettylee.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-45578684911071221522005-04-23T12:43:07.000-06:002005-04-23T12:43:07.000-06:00Have you given up those black beans? Have you sig...Have you given up those black beans? Have you signed a petition (or started one if one doesn't exist yet)?<br /><br />It's an interesting catch-22. Wal-mart (and Microsoft) wouldn't have ever gotten so big if they didn't use "questionable" tactics in the first place. After they've been rewarded so well by consumers and the stock market for their use of such tactics, I find it a bit hard to blame them for being unwilling to stop. They didn't get to be #1 by being a nice company, and they know that.Betty Leehttp://bettylee.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-25562157878658149782005-04-23T11:47:32.000-06:002005-04-23T11:47:32.000-06:00We can't just blame the consumers. We need to...We can't just blame the consumers. We need to inform them, which is exactly what this initial ad put in the NYT does. <br /><br />I'm looking forward to seeing what other information they make available to consumers. <br /><br />And I appreciate that they don't just post and run. They invite discussion on their website and they support all of their accusations as well.Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-82522544327471352062005-04-23T11:44:08.000-06:002005-04-23T11:44:08.000-06:00Wal-Mart has more than a little influence. it can...Wal-Mart has more than a little influence. it can make or break a person's livelihood. it can create life for a company or smash it to smithereens. <br /><br />Wal-Mart pushes for efficiency, which is good.<br />But then it pushes for even greater cost cuts. It forces manufacturers to use cheaper source materials and cheaper labor. It pushes even when all excess, all waste, has been trimmed off. it pushes for anorexia from a company that has already lost the 100 pounds that it was previously overweight. <br /><br />and yes, the company can say, "sorry wal-mart. we won't sell to you anymore." that's suicide. so the company is faced with the decision: anorexia vs. death.<br /><br />it seems to me that neither of those choices is optimal and that in the end, the anorexia of more and more american companies will eventually lead to problems in america as a whole.Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-13937170523631235412005-04-23T11:39:15.000-06:002005-04-23T11:39:15.000-06:00ok, so my quote was from a union website. but the...ok, so my quote was from a union website. but the union website happens to just have a concise way of saying what many others have said. and yes, <a href="http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,5344,00.html" rel="nofollow">this</a> is 6 year old news. unfortunately, the "in sam we trust" book is also about 6 years old at this point. so it's not the best source for up to date information. but much of the book is about the history of wal-mart anyway. so it's still well worth the read.<br /><br />there is a current allegation against Wal-Mart concerning Gelmart, a company that supplies both K-mart and Wal-Mart among other retailers. apparently some women at the company are on strike and are trying to unionize. but there's no child labor issues involved as far as i can tell.<br /><br />i certainly can't claim to know all that wal-mart is up to. all i know is that i've read sam's autobiography and i've read ortega's book and wal-mart has a history of screwing people (it's own people, it's own manufacturers, it's customers and i believe that it's screwing america in the long run). i'm alert to anything that's going on currently and i if Wal-Mart can show evidence of currently being an ethical, honest company, then i'll shut up about it. but i've seen nothing in Wal-Mart's favor other than that it makes smart, some might say cut-throat, spur of the moment decisions. the company can turn on a dime which is seriously remarkable given it's size. but that's a skill and not related to its lack of ethics. <br /><br />sam was incredibly skilled at retailing. it was his life and it shows. he was also a real people person. he was a great guy to talk to and hang out with. i really enjoyed reading his autobiography, even when it convinced me even more thoroughly that sam was a cut throat determined to "win" no matter what.Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-12940720880998620852005-04-23T05:52:29.000-06:002005-04-23T05:52:29.000-06:00Then, as I asked Meg before, why are you stopping ...Then, as I asked Meg before, why are you stopping with Walmart if you're going to point to chains of influence? Why not go all the way to the consumers and blame them?<br /><br />Business, like people, are responsible for their own choices. Walmart didn't tell any manufacturer "start using sweatshops or we're not going to sell your merchandise". They set prices for which they're willing to pay, and it's up to the manufacturer to either reject that deal or find a way to meet it. If the manufacturer then decides to off-shore the work or send it to a sweatshop, then it is <em>the manufacturer</em> who made the choice and who is responsible for the situation. <br /><br />What you're saying is the equivalent of blaming a mugger's friends for the mugger's actions. "Influence" is a very abstract and non-specific connection to use to blame Walmart or any other entity for the actions of a different one. <em>Everything</em> is influenced by something but that influence does not spread the responsibility in the least.Darryl Piercehttp://mcpierce.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-20013682872481328072005-04-23T03:48:19.000-06:002005-04-23T03:48:19.000-06:00Darryl gives an example in which Walmart pressures...Darryl gives an example in which Walmart pressures a distributor to lower prices. In turn, the distributor pressures its manufacturer for lower prices. In turn, the manufacturer "hires off-shore companies to assemble their products..."<br /><br />Darryl then asserts that Walmart has no control over how things it sells are manufactured, and is not responsible if there are sweatshops involved, because the manufacturer is the one that decided to hire the sweatshops, not Walmart.<br /><br />I agree that Walmart does not have <i>control</i> over how its products are manufactured. That said, there's a difference between control and <i>influence</i> and as the world's largest retailer, you can bet Walmart has plenty of influence.<br /><br />If the manufacturer wasn't being pressured to cut prices, would it turn to the sweatshops? If the distributor wasn't being pressured to cut prices, would it pressure the manufacturer? It's a chain reaction, and it starts with Walmart.<br /><br />Interestingly, it doesn't have to be that way. Walmart has the scale, it has the clout, it's the world's largest retailer and all that. When you reach that point, you have the ability - if not the responsibility - to effect change for the better. We've seen it before in the most unexpected places. Like when McDonalds decided that its customers wouldn't want fries made from genetically modified potatoes - and instantly killed the market for them.<br /><br />Walmart has the power, and the money, to start setting exemplary policies. If it says "no sweatshops" and is serious about it, there won't be sweatshops much longer. Okay, so maybe that t-shirt costs an extra 25 cents. It's not like people will stop shopping there.<br /><br />Walmart could even dare to spend $1.5 billion (of its over $10 billion in annual net income) to get its employees off welfare or whatever. With over 1.7 million employees, that'd work out to less than a $1/hour raise.<br /><br />As the country's largest employer, sooner or later it'll figure out that paying its own employees so little that they can't afford to buy its merchandise is a bad idea. Even Henry Ford tried to ensure that his workers could afford to buy the model T, didn't he?D Birchallhttp://danbirchall.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-41783991166589210612005-04-22T17:14:16.000-06:002005-04-22T17:14:16.000-06:00Look at it this way:
Company X makes widgets.
Di...Look at it this way:<br /><br />Company X makes widgets.<br /><br />Distributor A sells to Walmart. Distributor B sells to Target.<br /><br />Walmart puts pressure on A to lower their prices. A then pressures X to lower <em>their</em> prices. X hires off-shore companies to assemble their product to lower their costs and to meet X's demand.<br /><br />You buy the product from Target, who bought from B who <em>still bought from X</em>. <br /><br />In your example, the Gap manufacturers their own goods. That's not what I'm talking about. In that case, the Gap <em>is</em> directly responsible for the conditions of the factory workers.<br /><br />But, Walmart is <b>not</b> a manufacturer, it's a retail channel. It has no control over how anything it sells if manufactured. Whether there's one distributor between Walmart and the manufacturer, 100 distributors or <b>no</b> distributors, Walmart is not responsible for those working conditions because <i>it is not the manufacturer</i>. The manufacturer decided to hire the sweatshop and is therefore the one responsible for those conditions if they exist.Darryl Piercehttp://mcpierce.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-39716829418639979522005-04-22T17:09:24.000-06:002005-04-22T17:09:24.000-06:00Your quote is from a union website speaking agains...Your quote is from a union website speaking against non-union work being done. It's not what I would consider unbiased and objective. Their use of emotionally charged phrases and words lends little credibility to their arguments. And the quote is from nearly 10 years ago. What is their practice <em>today</em>?<br /><br />As for bait-and-switch, can you cite specific examples of such that's unique to Walmart? Every flyer I've ever read (and I don't read that many, I'll admit) from <em>every</em> retailer carries the disclaimer "not all merchandise shown is available in all stores" or something to that effect. They're usually organized and printed in a central office and then published to the various regions where stores are located. Since not all stores carry all the same merchandise, not every sale item is going to be found in every store. <br /><br />For this I speak from experience: when I was a teen I worked for Jamesway during Christmas. We regularly had people come in and accuse us (including me) of bait-and-switch tactics because we wouldn't have some items in our store that were advertised. And, just as I explained above, that's because the individual stores don't create the adverts nor do they publish them. They just sell what they have that is purchased by their consumer base. If the corporation decides to put widgets on sale and your Walmart doesn't carry widgets, then it's not bait-and-switch for them to not have the product when someone walks in to buy it. <br /><br />Bait and switch is when, for example, a mattress store puts up its own ad for a Footress and then pressures a customer into buy a Bartress. Simply not having a product in the store is not bait and switch. I don't know about anybody else, but I've never had a Walmart employee pressure me into buying <em>anything</em>.<br /><br />Finally, regarding charging prices, I have compared prices and Walmart is absolutely the lowest around for <em>everything</em>. I can't find any store that can beat them on prices for what they sell. A few years ago I bought Christene's Christmas presents at Target (a printer, vacuum, crock pot, etc.). I then went to Walmart and found not only those products for cheaper, but for the electronics and the vacuum I found <b>the next model up</b> for less! <br /><br />I'm sorry, but I think in the end we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, because I just don't accept all of the arguments people are using for hating Walmart.Darryl Piercehttp://mcpierce.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-37118994106109234112005-04-22T17:04:02.000-06:002005-04-22T17:04:02.000-06:00i don't get it. how does their going through ...i don't get it. how does their going through a different supplier mean that theyr'e less likely to be connected to the problem? they use a different supplier than the Gap and that is to their detriment because the Gap is actually dealing with the problem of child labor and slave labor. Wal-Mart uses a different supplier than the Gap because the bottom line is far more important to them than being an ethical company. the Gap, on the other hand, wants not only to provide a good product, but they want to provide a product that was made ethically.Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-34125614275818008852005-04-22T17:01:35.000-06:002005-04-22T17:01:35.000-06:00again, yes and no. not all retailers sell the exa...again, yes and no. not all retailers sell the exact same stuff. in fact, Wal-Mart carries a brand of black-beans that I can't find anywhere else. that's the chief reason i ever shop at Wal-Mart. (you should see the cashiers when i walk up with a cart full of nothing but black beans!) <br /><br />but, there are others issues to consider concerning Wal-Mart. the standard of living that Wal-Mart employees don't enjoy, which was the chief point of contention that this full page ad addressed, is another reason not to shop at Wal-Mart, even if the products that you buy are identical in brand and price (which i doubt they will be).<br /><br />i don't think these people, nor am i, looking for Wal-Mart to come to a crashing end. rather, we'd like Wal-Mart to be more ethical, more responsible, and to lead the way in more than just reducing prices to their rock-bottom level.Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-37686369654257412792005-04-22T16:56:46.000-06:002005-04-22T16:56:46.000-06:00again, when it comes to clothing, many retailers D...again, when it comes to clothing, many retailers DO have their own lines.<br /><br />"The Federal Labor Department revealed that goods produced for Kathy Lee Gifford’s clothes line (which is produced exclusively for Wal-Mart) were being made by Honduran children, working up to 13hours a day for "starvation wages." However, the story goes on; not only were these ‘Kathy Lee’ clothes made under terrible circumstances abroad, they were also being produced in New York City by a company called SEO fashions. This is significant because the subsequent investigation revealed that the workers at SEO were being paid off the books; their wages were below the legal minimum wage, and despite the fact that they were working up to 60 hours per week, they were not being paid overtime." -- <a href="http://www.local1358.com/walmart.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.local1358.com/walmart.htm</a><br /><br />there's also the issue of the fact that Wal-Mart often uses a bait and switch to get more money out of consumers. so irregardless of whether the products are made by slave labor or night, it IS likely that Wal-Mart is going to charge you more than some of the other big chains. (PBS recently did a report on Wal-Mart that addressed this issue. I believe the name of the show was "Is Wal-Mart good for America" or something along those lines.)Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-65476517441974351132005-04-22T16:51:10.000-06:002005-04-22T16:51:10.000-06:00I've been through Walmart and even with the cl...I've been through Walmart and even with the clothing there's nothing unique to them. Sure, they may go through a different supplier, but if so then they're even <em>further</em> removed from the problem of sweatshops, etc. <br /><br />As for the article, if it's a lose/lose situation, then it's still the manufacturer's fault if sweatshops, etc. are used since (again) <em>they</em> chose that route in order to lower their costs. And, as I said in a previous post, that's been going on for longer than Walmart's been a major player by about 20+ years or so.Darryl Piercehttp://mcpierce.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-17395517049547630692005-04-22T16:46:44.000-06:002005-04-22T16:46:44.000-06:00well, yes and no. retailers seem to use different...well, yes and no. retailers seem to use different suppliers for clothes in particular. they probably use different suppliers for other items as well. although, when it comes to something like toasters or pharmacy supplies, etc, yes, they probably are pulling from the same places.<br /><br />here's <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html" rel="nofollow">a great article</a> on the perils of doing business with Wal-Mart. (the article focuses on problems that vlassic had in dealing with the retailer.) basically, it's a lose/lose situation. you lose if you don't sell your product to Wal-Mart and you lose if you do. these are problems that i've Never heard in regards to any other retailer.Meg Dunnhttp://barefootmeg.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3591298.post-88112834081879906972005-04-22T15:35:32.000-06:002005-04-22T15:35:32.000-06:00I disagree that that will have a change, since you...I disagree that that will have a change, since you'll just switch from buying from Walmart to buying the exact same things from a different vendor. The only thing you can do is focus on the manufacturer and not the retailer to get change.Darryl Piercehttp://mcpierce.multiply.comnoreply@blogger.com