The Cinepro Family Loves Walmart

[_Brackite]

Walmart is one of the worst things that has happened to this country the past thirty years.

...

Anyone thinking Walmart gives a damn about anything other than making more money at any cost, really needs to watch the documentary Walmart: The high cost of low prices. It is free online.

From Michelle Obama:

Take the example of Wal-Mart. In just the past two years, the company reports that it has cut the costs to its consumers of fruits and vegetables by $2.3 billion and reduced the amount of sugar in its products by 10%. Wal-Mart has also opened 86 new stores in underserved communities and launched a labeling program that helps customers spot healthy items on the shelf. And today, the company is not only seeing increased sales of fresh produce, but also building better relationships with its customers and stronger connections to the communities it serves.

Link: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/02/ ... od-options

[_Kevin Graham]

So Wal-Mart is trying to cash in on the latest "health food" craze.

And....?

[_cinepro]

they steal from the taxpayers at the tune of billions in subsidies,

While I'm as opposed to "subsidies" as anyone, it's absurd to classify a subsidy as "stealing". The act of taxation is the part that's "stealing".

Obviously, if a person or company cheats on their taxes (i.e. breaks the law), they are then technically "stealing" buy not paying what the law says they should. But you don't seem to be accusing Walmart of illegally cheating on their taxes.

they steal from the same local governments who give them outrages sums of money,

Again, I'm generally opposed to such deals, but it certainly isn't "stealing".

and mistreat their workers domestic and abroad, and they engage in false advertisement (i.e. why hire a beautiful models to do their commercials instead of just going straight to a random Walmart and letting the viewers see what kind of people really work and shop there?)

Walmart probably does a better job of using their actual employees and customers in advertising than any other company that I can think of. They do it because they're cheap (my wife was paid with enough Walmart gift cards to give us a great Christmas in December, and about a month's worth of food). Obviously far, far less than an actual actor would make for a national commercial.

So that's a really weird complaint. Everyone that works and shops at Walmart is ugly, so they're lying if they have attractive people in their ads? And if you look at their ads on YouTube, there are many that have people that aren't conventionally "attractive".

Anyone thinking Walmart gives a damn about anything other than making more money at any cost, really needs to watch the documentary Walmart: The high cost of low prices. It is free online.

As with any business, they obviously care a lot about making money, but they do give back to the local communities:

In 2012, Walmart and the Walmart Foundation gave more than $1 billion in cash and in-kind contributions around the world. This includes $1 billion in cash and in-kind gifts in the United States and $82.2 million in cash and in-kind gifts in international markets. In addition, Walmart, Sam’s Club and Logistics associates volunteered more than 2.2 million hours, generating $18 million to U.S. nonprofits.

http://foundation.walmart.com/

You can complain that they don't give enough, but you should acknowledge that they do something that isn't all about profit.

Incidentally, it is hard to imagine how self-professed anti-Socialist conservatives could support a company which organizes meetings to encourage its own employees to get on the government dole just so they don't have to complain so much about how little they are paid for their labor.

Yeah, Walmart is a swell company.

The great thing about capitalism is that one day, Walmart will be gone (or a shadow of what it is today). Just like Sears, Montgomery Ward, and countless other retailers, eventually something better will come along, and people will choose that better option and Walmart will shrink. It won't happen because of the government, or unions, or whiners. It will happen because an entrepreneur will have a better idea, and people will support it.

Honestly, I can't wait.

[_bcspace]

I have no problem with Walmart. Of course we joke about it being the local "Try 'n' Save". However, the instant they unionize, I will oppose them fully.

[_Kevin Graham]

While I'm as opposed to "subsidies" as anyone, it's absurd to classify a subsidy as "stealing". The act of taxation is the part that's "stealing".

Ah, yes, poor Walmart. They are the victims because they get taxed! Never mind the fact that Wal-Mart cost taxpayers roughly a billion in subsidies each year. And this doesn't even take into account things like, this week Wal-Mart pleads guilty to dumping hazardous waste and will pay $81 million. But they're innocent, right?

Or the fact that because Wal-Mart pays their employees so little, the majority of them are forced to be on government assistance programs. Walmart is costing the taxpayers roughly $2.6 billion a year when including programs like government housing and food stamps. Americans are so stupid they actually believe they are paying less for Walmart products when in reality the money they have to pay in taxes makes Walmart one of the more expensive places to shop. And it really sucks for those of us who do not shop there because our tax dollars are used to subsidize the company just the same. This is the real difference between Liberals and Conservatives. Conservatives like handouts for companies, because they think it is virtuous capitalism at work. But giving tax dollars to the poor and needy? That's Socialism! Just listen to how cinepro bends over backwards to make excuses for Walmart's business practices. FOX News does the same thing because Walmart gives them money. One pro-Walmart, anti-Union skit on FOX actually had an ad banner saying, "This message brought to you by Walmart"! I mean you just can't make this stuff up.

Walmart also systematically challenges property tax assessments to chip away at its property tax bills, costing local governments several million dollars a year in lost revenues and legal expenses.

Tell me cinepro, when exactly did you sell your soul to the Capitalism lie? I gave you a clear example of unambiguous, indefensible theft in Wal-Mart refusing to pay its workers their earnings. You completely dodged it.

Obviously, if a person or company cheats on their taxes (i.e. breaks the law), they are then technically "stealing" buy not paying what the law says they should. But you don't seem to be accusing Walmart of illegally cheating on their taxes.

I'm accusing them of manipulating the system in ways that makes theft legal. That you would refuse to see the evidence and continue to make excuses for them, all because technically it is "legal," misses the point that it is entirely unethical. The fact is they lie, they cheat and steal in every sense of the term, but because they are such a powerful company with the money to influence politicians, they typically get away with it.

And if you're so caught up in what's legal, then Walmart steals from workers and this is proved by the fact that they've been forced to settle in dozens of nationwide lawsuits in which they refused to pay overtime to those who worked it. You see, Walmart manipulates the system, the rules and the people involved, all for the purpose of maximizing profits. They cut every corner imaginable and the workers are the ones carrying the burdens, as they are expected to work more and more even when they are told no overtime will be paid. Ethics doesn't have a role in anything Walmart does. Even when they get caught, they continue to break the law because they know most of the time they will get away with it, and ultimately it is profitable to steal.

In 2007 Walmart settled a major lawsuit:

The United States Labor Department announced yesterday that Wal-Mart Stores had agreed to pay $33.5 million in back wages plus interest to settle a federal lawsuit that accused the company of violating overtime laws involving 86,680 workers.

In 2009 Walmart lost another lawsuit:

Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer, forced employees in Oregon to work unpaid overtime between 1994 and 1999, a federal jury found Thursday in the first of dozens of such lawsuits across the country to come to trial.

Walmart had to pay roughly $5 million in back wages just last year:

"Thousands of employees will see money put back into their pockets that should have been there all along," said Nancy J. Leppink, deputy administrator of the Labor Department's wage and hour division, in a statement. Walmart is also being investigated by the Department of Justice and the U.S. Congress over allegations that it systematically bribed Mexican officials in order to obtain permits for new stores.

And last August more than 20,000 New York Walmart employees filed a class action lawsuit complaining that:

Gamble claims that while she worked at Wal-Mart's store in Centereach, N.Y., she and other hourly workers were routinely locked in the store at night where they would have to restock merchandise and count out the cash registers, even though the workers had already gone off the clock. Gamble says the tasks often took two extra hours. "What I want from this lawsuit is simple, and it is fair. When people work, they should get paid," Gamble said in a statement.

Do you see a trend of illegal behavior, cinepro? Obviously Walmart has no intention of obeying the laws.

But hey, you and your wife have to go with your hearts. I'm sure they're in the "Right."

I mean, what would Jesus do, right? Just a few months ago Wal-Mart found out that one of its employees was eating out of a bag of already opened Oreos. This 63 year old lady said she did so because she wasn't making enough money working at Walmart to feed herself and her family. Wal-Mart decided that firing her wasn't the best thing to do. No, it decided that the best thing to do was to make sure she serves six months in prison for felony theft. Over a few Oreo cookies! But hey, they also gave a few hundred million to Right Wing causes, er, I mean "charity", so I guess they have ethics after all.

Everyone that works and shops at Walmart is ugly, so they're lying if they have attractive people in their ads? And if you look at their ads on YouTube, there are many that have people that aren't conventionally "attractive".

Not that they're ugly, but that they're depressingly sad to look at. People you just know are scraping to get by in life. This complaint would be "weird" if it were any other corporate advertisement, but Walmart employees are particularly depressing to look at. Some of them look like they haven't showered in weeks.

As with any business, they obviously care a lot about making money, but they do give back to the local communities:

Are you really this naïve? You read the company's carefully crafted talking point from their website but you don't get into the details as to what these donations actually are and how they benefited the "local communities" and not their shareholders.

The Wal-Mart Corporation often brags about the philanthropy efforts of its founding family, the Waltons, but the bulk of the money donated to education goes to efforts that support vouchers, charter schools, and tuition tax credits. According to USA Today, Wal-Mart donated more than $250 million to such causes in six years time.

In fact, the National Education Association (NEA) charges that the late John Walton provided tens of millions of dollars towards the anti-public education movement and sat on the boards of several major pro-voucher organizations.

Don't let Wal-Mart's advertising fool you. This company is stealing tax dollars from the public education system, and their 'donations' hurt more than they help.

You're caught up in this typical Right Wing tactic of using "charitable" contributions to exonerate someone from wrongdoing. Republicans tried this crap with Romney and now you're doing it with Walmart.

The great thing about capitalism is that one day, Walmart will be gone (or a shadow of what it is today). Just like Sears, Montgomery Ward, and countless other retailers, eventually something better will come along, and people will choose that better option and Walmart will shrink. It won't happen because of the government, or unions, or whiners. It will happen because an entrepreneur will have a better idea, and people will support it.

Then you obviously do not understand Capitalism very well. Capitalism unregulated results in monopolies, period. That's because after a market has progressed to a certain point, only a few can seriously compete, and what drives the success is ultimately the money on hand. Wal-Mart was never something "better" in the sense the Capitalism gurus like to talk about. For instance, they don't provide better services or better quality products. Not even close really. Lots of its products are made from worthless plastics, designed to break within a year so customers will need to buy another one. Wal-mart doesn't provide better service either. The reason they are successful is because they invested early in electronic scanning system which dramatically cut their labor costs. They also have the money to invest in overseas labor markets. But ultimately, they succeed because it is run by an immoral BOD who puts profit above everything else. This is why the company can invest in foreign labor, abusing workers because their third world governments allow it. The result is ridiculously cheap products for which they get to charge anywhere from 4 to 20 times as much at the register. Now if you think this is what our founding fathers had in mind with Capitalism, then you're seriously in need of a history lesson. This was precisely the kind of thing folks like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams despised. But their money has a loud voice, and it says their success is explained as nothing more than pure Capitalism, meaning pure "American." That's the deception you've fallen for. It is anti-American not use your power and influence to avoid paying workers a just compensation.

And the reason these Mom and Pop stores, who provide infinitely better service, cannot compete with Walmart, has everything to do with unfair competition; the antithesis of what Adam Smith proposed. For instance, why does Wal-Mart, which is already an established monster of a corporation raking in billions in profits every year, get subsidized by local governments while the entrepreneurs, these heroes of Capitalism, do not? Because Walmart has the wealth to negotiate with. It has the wealth to buy local politicians. It has the wealth to invest in large scale technological upgrades that reduce labor costs. It has enough wealth so that it can afford to charge customers at "below cost"certain products, for just to drive their local competitors out of business. It can take an infinite number of risks to corner a market, that no rising entrepreneur could.

A secret behind Wal-Mart’s rapid expansion in the United States has been its extensive use of public money. This includes more than $1.2 billion in tax breaks, free land, infrastructure assistance, low-cost financing and outright grants from state and local governments around the country. - http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/index.html

And what do you call it when Walmart sends negotiators to local governments to convince them it is in their best interest to subsidize their new stores, by telling them they will ultimately profit from sales tax revenue, and then shortly after their building is constructed, Walmart decides to drop everything and move to a newer building just down the road? Small towns who buy into these scams end up sacrificing tax payer funds, and giving up things like public services, more school teachers, firemen, etc.

I've brought up this point before. There are two former Walmart buildings withing a five mile radius of my home. Walmart used they for a short period before packing up everything and moving down the road just across county lines. Apparently, this is something they do all across the country, leaving local communities with large, abandoned facilities who are in no position to negotiate (since they're already paid for!) with the few companies who could possibly use them. In the case of the Walmart in Cathedral City, the company packed up and left just days before the local government was going to receive 100% of the sale tax, according to the deal they had made. Walmart instead opened up shop just two miles down the road on the other side of the property lines so Cathedral City would receive nothing. There are currently 30,000,000 square feet of empty Walmart stores. Enough to build 30,000 classrooms!

[_Brackite]

Americans are so stupid they actually believe they are paying less for Walmart products when in reality the money they have to pay in taxes makes Walmart one of the more expensive places to shop.

[_Kevin Graham]

:eek:

Don't doubt it.

According to Business Insider, the biggest myth about Wal-Mart is their so-called lower prices.

And this, from an Iowa State Economics Professor:

How does the number-one retailer maintain an image of low prices? First, by actually making sure its prices are lower than its competitors, at least on key items. These items are called "price-sensitive" items in the industry, and it is commonly believed that the average consumer knows the "going price" of fewer than 100 items. These tend to be commodities that are purchased frequently.
Price-sensitive merchandise is displayed in prominent places such as the kiosk at the entrance to the store, as well as on end caps, in dump bins, and in gondolas down the main aisles. Consequently, when Wal-Mart customers see the items of which they know the price, the ones always priced lower in Wal-Mart, they start assuming that everything else is also priced lower than at competing stores. This assumption is simply not true.

My barber has offered me a simple example. He sells a nonbreakable pocket comb for 25 cents that he procures from his vendor for eight cents. Wal-Mart sells a lower-quality comb for 98 cents, and one would assume that Wal-Mart pays less for it than the barber does. People keep buying Wal-Mart combs, however, because the average person does not know the going price of a pocket comb, and it is automatically assumed that the Wal-Mart price is the lowest.

In fact, Wal-Mart has been getting away with this trick for years. This is from a nice little book by Bill Quinn published in 2000 entitled How Wal-Mart Is Destroying America (and the World):

Wal-Mart got by with the slogan "Always the Lowest Price. Always" for years, until the National Advertising Review Board, which is funded by the Better Business Bureau, investigated the claim that Wal-Mart always has the low(est) price. The Board found that this just was not and is not true, and promptly ordered our pals in Bentonville to stop saying it.

Wal-Mart then had to change its motto to something that barely skipped around the law-like "Always Low Prices. Always"-so near the original slogan that the public in general still perceived that Wal-Mart had the lowest prices.

If you believe that Wal-Mart has the lowest prices, you are playing into the company's hands. A few items are cheaper, but they jack up the prices on everything else.

If you think you save money going there regularly, Wal-Mart is playing you for a fool. There is no good reason to shop at Wal-Mart except that you have absolutely no other choice.

This is from an interview with Jon Lehman "who worked for Wal-Mart for 17 years, managing six stores in four different states before he left the company in 2001 to work for a union trying to organize Wal-Mart employees":

[Q.] ...What is the opening price point? Why is it so key to Wal-Mart's strategy?

OK, it's lawn-and-garden time. Your grass is getting high. Your lawn mower is broken from last year, or you need a new lawn mower. You're going to go to Wal-Mart. So you go to Wal-Mart, and you're looking for a lawn mower, and to your delight, you walk in, and you see this $99 lawn mower. You may not want a cheap, basic lawn mower, but you see that price point on an end cap or a big display stack base, and you say, "Wow, what a great price." And it draws you in. It lures you into the department, and you form the perception immediately that "Hey, Wal-Mart's got the lowest prices in town. Look at this item right here. How could they sell it for $99?" ...

But as you walk into the department and look for that $269 power-drive lawn mower that you really are after, they're not losing money on that item. And it may not be the lowest price in town. Wal-Mart used to advertise "Always the low price." They don't do that anymore.

[Q.] Because?

They got in trouble. Some of the other competitors sued them, tried to go after them and say, "You can't say 'Always the low price,' because you're not always the low price." They did a study -- a very critical study, very thorough study -- and found that Wal-Mart was not always the low price. And Target and Kmart got a little miffed, and some other competitors that [said], "How can Wal-Mart advertise this and it's not true?"

[Q.] So what you're saying is Wal-Mart, when it says, "Always low prices," it's not always the lowest price on every lawn mower or every microwave oven or every vacuum cleaner or every TV set.

Absolutely not.

[Q.] So what does the opening price point mean?

The opening price point is ... to get you in. You look at that, and you think, "Wow, what a great price." ...

And usually, more times than not, those items are imports. They're not domestically made; they're from other countries.

[Q.] Why?

Well, the price of labor is so cheap. In China, Malaysia, Bangladesh, you can make stuff for a fraction of the cost that you can domestically, so that price is the rock-bottom price.

[Q.] So are you saying that the opening price is the lowest price and actually will beat the competition, but maybe other items in the same category aren't necessarily the lowest price?

Oh, absolutely not. It's just like fishing: You want to entice that fish to that lure. ... Once you walk past that opening price point, they've got you, because you've already formed the perception that everything in that department is the lowest price in town.

[Q.] And maybe it's not.

No, it's not. No, I can tell you it's not. I can tell you from experience it's not...

----------------------


My point reminds me of my relationship with fast food. I gave it up about ten years ago, because it always made me feel sick afterwards. Only later on, did I realize that McDonald's should have made me sick for so many other reasons. If you still shop at Wal-Mart and this is news to you, maybe like me and McDonald's you can realize that it's not nearly as good as you think.

[_Droopy]

Its probably not a very good idea to listen to Marxists, communists, and fascists opine about either Wal-Mart, the business world, or economics qua economics, subjects they no less than nothing about, and have no interest in knowing.

[_cinepro]

Obviously a lot to respond to, Kevin, so let me say that I agree with you that no store should get preferential treatment from local governments, and Walmart should obey all corporate and labor laws (and be penalized if they don't, which as you point out they are).

I'm also mystified by your white hat/black hat view of capitalism. You make it sound as if everyone that works at Walmart is evil (except for the poor, innocent souls who work for Walmart and are victims of the other people that work there...?), but the foibles you rail against can be found in any other enterprise. As if small and medium sized businesses and corporations don't do bad things either? You're railing against the human condition.

And ultimately, your view of capitalism is insane. Because for someone who hates Walmart so much, you should love capitalism because it is capitalism that gives you the choice to not shop at Walmart, that allows other people to see the problems with Walmart and start better businesses to compete with them. And it's capitalism that allows any Walmart employee that doesn't like working there to go and find another job.

But just out of curiosity, what do you see as a practical solution to the Walmart problem? Forcing them to pay higher wages? Price controls on their items? Not allowing local governments to set their own taxation rates? Minimum standards of dress and attractiveness for customers? Capping the amount of profit they can make?

[_Kevin Graham]

Obviously a lot to respond to, Kevin, so let me say that I agree with you that no store should get preferential treatment from local governments, and Walmart should obey all corporate and labor laws (and be penalized if they don't, which as you point out they are).

But they don't. They steal and lie. And you love them for it.

I'm also mystified by your white hat/black hat view of capitalism. You make it sound as if everyone that works at Walmart is evil

That isn't what I said at all. The vast majority of the lower level workers aren't evil at all. Those in positions to make decisions, are merely pieces of a mindless machine called the corporation. Its duty is to maximize profits at any costs. The end result, is what we see with Walmart.

but the foibles you rail against can be found in any other enterprise.

Yes, companies that are incorporated. Particularly those whose stock is traded publicly. It means management has been divorced from ownership. The reason people like to be "incorporated" is because it reduces their liability. But is that ethical?

As if small and medium sized businesses and corporations don't do bad things either? You're railing against the human condition.

Wrong. It isn't the human at work here, it is the Corporation. The corporate structure is a machine designed to do one thing only. To make money, to compete, and corner the markets any way possible. Things like ethics, legality, morality, are just a nuisance. It is why corporations love moving to third world countries where governments are willing to be just as tyrannical as the corporate heads. Politicians are easier to bribe there. Things that would be illegal and heavily regulated in the USA, are typically ignored in places like China, Nigeria, Honduras, etc.

And ultimately, your view of capitalism is insane.

How so? Is Walmart not a product of Capitalism? It is our largest employer. When I rail against Capitalism, it is the Right Wing notion of "free market" as the supposed solution to all our problems, when in fact I see it as the problem. The more "free" a market is, the more freedom they have to break laws, form monopolies, engage in anti-competitive practices, etc.

Because for someone who hates Walmart so much, you should love capitalism because it is capitalism that gives you the choice to not shop at Walmart, that allows other people to see the problems with Walmart and start better businesses to compete with them.

You haven't been listening. Capitalism unregulated leads to monopolies, which ultimately means less choice (i.e. if you think you can protest companies like Monsanto by refusing to buy any of its products, then good luck with that!).
Americans are typically oblivious to the fact that most of the products and services they see around them, are generally owned by a relatively few giant coporations.

Right Wingers harp on the virtues of Capitalism in the sense that government intrusion is always a bad thing, but what you folks do not understand is that pure "free market" Laissez-faire Capitalism has never existed in this country, and arguably anywhere else. So what we're really talking about is degree of Capitalism. I'm saying Capitalism allowed to run a muck, unregulated, naturally leads to monopolies, which means no choice.

But just out of curiosity, what do you see as a practical solution to the Walmart problem?

The Walmart problem is caused by a number of factors. Probably first and foremost is globalization, which is really out of our control. But I don't think American based companies should be able to open sweat shops overseas without paying a hefty price back at home. There has to be some kind of deterrent to do so, but there isn't. I believe measures should be taken to make the market more competitive. As it is, no one can decide one day they want to open up a store to compete with Walmart or Target. It just isn't going to happen. It is impossible actually. Once we recognize this is impossible, shouldn't we stop pretending we still live in the 19th century where anyone can decide to provide their own goods and services and have an equal chance at success? There are of course exceptions when people come up with new ideas, and produce services people didn't know they wanted, but something like Big Box retailing is at this point, an industry left for the multi-billion dollar investors groups. This means hundreds and thousands of small businesses being put out of business, thanks to Walmart/Sams being able to become as big as it wants.

Walmart is making Americans poorer not only with their low wages, but also their totalitarian managerial practices. From their willingness to break labor laws to their Gestapo tactics towards unions. The company conditions Americans to accept the lie that it is good for America because it is a product of Capitalism. That it is OK to settle for crap products because they're "the lowest prices," deceiving people into believing they are living life with valuable goods (an illusion of wealth). The bigger the company gets, the more they employ, which helps explain why the distribution of wealth is funneled to the top 3%. The poor just keep getting poorer and the rich just keep getting richer. You think that is the beauty of capitalism, whereas I think that is a failure.

Seriously, I'm stunned that Conservatives who freak out about poor people sucking off the government teet, just sit back and give giant corporations a pass for doing the same exact things. You say you are against it, but obviously you're not against it so much. After all, you "Love Wal-Mart" remember?

We've established that each Walmart costs the taxpayers more than they could ever benefit from buying "cheap" products there. So ultimately, what is the benefit of Walmart aside from making the Walton family more and more wealthy? And why are Right Wing outfits tripping over themselves to defend Walmart while telling Mom and Pop stores to "get over it"? The best thing Capitalism had going for it was the competitive nature of the markets, yet you folks have completely taken that out of the equation while pretending its still there.