Free screenings in your area.

Looks interesting enough, and I'm floored by just how many people in NYC are willing to open their apartments to total strangers to watch a movie. I'm opting for a screening in a bar with a kitchen tho.

I watched it last night; borrowed the DVD from a friend at work. I thought it was good. It raised a few points that I wasn't already aware of, such as their worse than poor environmental record and crime statistics, as well as just how far they go in their anti-union practices.

It's appalling what that company does in the name of profit.

One of my sister's magizines was lying open to a page with an ad for "organic clothing". Like organic food, the clothes are free of bad-karma nastyness like sweatshop labour and cheap materials.

A great idea, if it's true. But sadly, the working poor are still forced toward the "Rolled Back Prices" by their slave-master land lords and employers. What a beautiful cycle of corporate greed: pay the poor terribly so they can only afford goods created by the poor.

Welcome back to dark-ages serfdom.

But gee, everyone in the commercials looks happy!

This might have been nice a few weeks ago before my city voted Walmart in 53% to 47%. The only reason they won is they got the Firefighter & Police unions to support them (even if the people didn't)...

Of course, I work in a grocery store, so I'm biased.

The low prices outweigh the loss of the businesses that have higher prices. That is, in a pure capitalist sense.

If a business can´t provide a better or cheaper product/service, then they are less efficient than Walmart, and thus the existence of Walmart makes for a more productive capitalist economy.

Of couse though, competition is a good thing. And right now Walmart is hard to compete with. The only way to compete with them is for small business owners to rally support for a boycott. They know that when Walmart moves into their neighborhood, they´re toast.

I don't like WalMart killing small businesses as much as the next guy, but let me say this... In a time of crisis, WalMart was the first group of people to respond here. WalMart trucks full of supplies were rolling in a full 3-4 days before FEMA. They opened up the store here the day of the storm and said "take whatever you need". While FEMA trucks with ice were lost all over the country, WalMart was here, passing out ice. They sent their head of security to City Hall, with instructions to do whatever we needed. When we needed something, after a few days, we didn't bother asking FEMA or the Feds, we asked Trent, and it showed up either in hours or at least by the next day.

You certainly have to give Wal-Mart props for using their massive logistics system to do some good for the people who needed it. You almost have to wonder whether, in the next massive disaster (whatever/whenver it occurs), that FEMA will just contract this sort of thing out to Wal-Mart from the very beginning. (With a no-bid contract, naturally.)

None of this, of course, makes up for any of Wal-Mart's other market misbehavior.

Quote:
The low prices outweigh the loss of the businesses that have higher prices. That is, in a pure capitalist sense.

If a business can´t provide a better or cheaper product/service, then they are less efficient than Walmart, and thus the existence of Walmart makes for a more productive capitalist economy.

This often expressed nonsense is called "Market Fundamentalism", making those who actually believe it "Market Fundamentalists". There are many flaws in this thinking, but here are two of the biggest ones:

1. It assumes that cost is the only measure of value, thus "efficiency" measured as the cost of an item offered should be pursued by any means, including worker exploitation.

2. It assumes that the market is the answer to all problems, but ignores the fact that indivicual market participants have a vested interest in destroying the market mechanism itself by achieving a functional monopoly. Many companies engage in unethical predatory behaviors to accomplish this, such as selling below cost to gain access to a new market.

Cost and profit are not the only things of value in the world, and the unfettered pursuit of them at the expense of other values is not a good thing.

FWIW,
Jim

That is, indeed, a positive thing. The cynic in me says that it was all paid for out of the charity fund fuelled by voluntary deductions from the "associates" paychecks, as opposed to having actually come out of Wal-Mart's pockets. Since I don't know, though, I'll try to think happy thoughts...

Yeah, the new supercenter will be about 2 miles south of my store. 1 mile north of my store is a standard Walmart, but in the same shopping center is a Mervyn's that is closing. The rumor is Walmart is going to buy it and put another Supercenter there (like you said, outside city limits). The market here is already so saturated. Within a 5 mile radius of my store there are 13 other grocery stores. There were 15...

In 20 years the people here will realize what they have done...

I agree, Jeff. I can't stand Wal-Mart from a political point of view, but I can't stand them even more because it's just a terrible, terrible store. Like you say, the aisles are always clogged with pallets of random junk, the aisles are too small, the layout makes virtually no sense, you can never find anything, and their products change so often you can seldom get the same thing twice. That said, at least their stores are dirty and the employees surly (I'd be surly if I was locked in the store all night at slave-labor wages, too, though).

I'm totally willing to spend a few bucks more to go to the Target, where I can find things quickly, where the employees are reasonably friendly (and, hate to say it, are more than one step removed from pond scum), and the store clean and maneuverable.

The only thing that Wal-Mart had going for it was that it was open 24x7. But now that that's gone, I no longer have any reason to go.

But Bitt, what about the free RV parking? [/sarcasm]

Ditto on all the negative comments. The only time I'm glad for Walmart is when I need pong balls and more cups at 2 AM. And now that I'm in my mid-30's, that's not too often.

-Zeke

Does Wal-Mart have uniformly low prices, or do they rise prices if they manage to kill the competition? If they stay low, then it's understandable they are thriving - there's a lot of folks for whom 10% lower price, even for somewhat inferior product, is huge.

In cities that are real cities (that is, that have mixed residence/shopping/business/civic functions in every neighborhood, all within walking distance) megastores are not killing small shops, but suplanting them. For example, I have within three minute walk a bakery and a small grocery (both open till 10pm seven days a week). Within five minutes are other two groceries (you could call them convenience stores), three bakeries, a butcher, a smallish supermarket, a laundry and dry cleaning service, a hairdresser, a fresh produce shop, and other assorted tiny shops (like two belonging to cooperatives, one selling honey and everything made from it or beewax, another with excellent olive oil, wine, grappa and dried figs from a little Dalmatian island). Seven or eight minutes away is a shopping center with a large, well and consistently stocked and not too bussy supermarket (if lines reach tree people, additional checkout counters are open), ten or so shops (clothing, office supplies, appliances...), several cafes, a self-service restaurant popular at lunchtime with people woking in adjecent office blocks, a beautician, a bank... Only now I need public transportation or a car, to reach unpleasant but cheaper megastores like ones described. You are paying for car culture.

The problem is that they usually go into fairly sparsely populated areas, drive all the other retailers out of business, at which point none of their customers have any money to buy much of anything, so they then go out of business at that location because they aren't making money anymore.

And it's not that the products are inferior, they're the same. They don't sell anything that's not manufactured and boxed by someone else. (Well, they do sell cheap and inferior clothing, I suppose.) There are claims against them that they dictate their price to their vendors and their vendors have to comply because Wal-Mart is 85% of their sales and they'll go out of business if they don't. Of course, they then comply and go out of business because they aren't making any money.

And most of the places in the US aren't like Europe as far as stores go. Usually the smallest place you can buy any sort of groceries is a supermarket, which comprises produce, butcher, baker (and candlestick-maker?), packaged goods, frozen goods, alcohol (of different sorts depending on the jurisdiction), dairy, and general goods, like households and toiletries. And seldom are they in any sort of walking distance at all. In most parts of the US, there are no walk-to-it stores of any nature.

God, I hate that. I'd love to have dedicated stores where I can get quality merchandise. There are a few upscale supermarkets, but that's about it, and they're usually pretty far away.

But, for the record, Wal-Mart sells mostly households and toiletries, but also cheap clothes, auto parts (but just oil, batteries, and the like, not head gaskets or anything) sporting goods, toys, sewing/craft items, DVDs, small entertainment electronics, cheap TVs, video games and consoles, some boxed foods, mostly snack foods, and some garden stuff. They also have Super Wal-Marts that sell the same thing, usually scaled back a little, plus a supermarket.

We have one of the UK's biggest WalMarts about half a mile from the house, and it is where we tend to go when we just need to grab something quickly, because it is easiest to get parked, get in and out of. There are closer supermarkets, but they are a pain in the neck.

Morally, I don't like WalMart, but they do have better food and goods than the others here, although to be fair, I can get way better food about 12 miles away, at the weekend farmer's market - just is a lot of time and effort:-)

In addition, the company does not "own" most of their inventory. Because of their huge volume, OEM's consign much of the inventory and are paid when it sells. In the words of Don Tapscott, author of the fantastic Digital Economy, "Wall Mart owns the product only for a nanosecond, as it passes through the checkout scanner." This is great for Wall Mart, but bad for the supplier who needs to front manufacturing and transportation costs of extremely large orders.

They are a notoriously tough buyer. A colleague who is a VP at a major grain products company told me that Wall Mart and Sam's Club will purchase by the multiple rail car load, but with extremely short notice and at a very low price. If the supplier is not willing to bend over backwards, by putting their bulk order ahead of everyone else's order, then too bad.

I used to work for a supply chain consulting firm, and we often told medium-sized business who were trying to get their products into the Wall Mart system that this could be the worst thing that ever happened to them. Wall Mart demands absolute first preference from a supplier, in huge volume, at extremely high service levels -- and at very low margin. For companies like Coca Cola, who can handle these huge orders and rail shipments in stride, the large volume may well be worth the lower margin. For many companies, however, the "cost to serve" Wall Mart means that they can't sell to them profitably. Basically, it is a more expensive customer to serve, and they demand lower prices for the priviledge.

I agree with what others have said that it is a horrible shopping experience, and I simply won't go there. The true democracy of America is the consumer dollar though, and millions have voted the likes of Wall Mart and Home Depot into the positions they enjoy.

Wall Mart does so many things right: incredibly efficient distribution, the toughest purchasing in the world, and stellar use of technology (for a long time, Wall Mart owned the largest telephony switching system in the SE United States). They invest where they need to, in distribution automation and information systems, and cut corners everwhere else they can get away with it. The fact of the matter is that they do what they were "elected" to do extremely well. From this point of view, Wall Mart is one of the best run companies in the world. Will people realize that "the game is not worth the candle?" Certainly this is what the documentary makers are hoping.

I don't think its *necessarily* bad for communities or the country, but it shows what you get when cost is the only factor for people: low quality, poor service, bad worker relationships, bad supplier relationships, oh -- and low prices. The important thing to remember is that people seem to want this. These documentaries exist because some people don't want it, and they believe that others won't once they understand the "high cost of low price." I think this is naieve, but whatever. I doubt that the opponents of Wall Mart are the nation's poor...

Another extremely well-run company has the exact opposite approach: Barnes and Noble. This company charges more for its products, but provides a pleasing atmosphere for people. This is the other side of retailing: the retailer as entertainer. Among non-drinking people, this store has actually become a pickup scene. A retail store!

Since there will *always* be fewer high-income persons than low-income persons, the Barnes and Noble model will only work in large population centers where a sufficient market critical mass exists. On the other hand, the poor are everywhere in sufficient numbers to make a Wall Mart profitable.

Jim

Oh, by the way, the free screenings of this movie in my area are all in upscale neighborhoods. This Wall Mart hating is a classic example of Maslow's Heirarchy: those who can afford not to go there hate it and see all of the negatives and injustices, but there are millions of poor people who can't afford otherwise.

If that's true, how did all these poor people survive before Wal-Mart?

Wal-Mart used to have a nasty policy of selling only the fullscreen versions of movies on DVD. Certainly well within their rights to do so, but it speaks poorly of their clientele and also means I'd never buy one there regardless of any of my other complaints.

They used to edit CDs for explicit lyrics and not tell you, too. Nice, huh? Wouldn't want to offend the person that buys the latest Ice Cube album. You never can tell when Cube might accidentally let loose with a "gosh darn".

I'm not saying its a matter of survival. It's a matter of values, which develop heirarchically. Only once people have their economic needs met to their satisfaction will they begin to raise these questions. In general, poor people have more concerns about money and will value lower prices above other issues.