Wal-Mart: An Economic Cancer On Our Cities

I still can't believe conservatives want to kill the min wage... crazy

 

If people have issues then don't shop at Walmart stores and then after they lose significant business maybe you can change their corporate model, but seeing how popular they are seems to me most people are just fine with Walmart as is.

 

they currently pay a min wage, I would not be happy if they paid less then that... would you?

one can see that bad they do in the community, but they are a business and they offer low prices, that appeals to many.. just don't complain that you pay more tax to support the walmart employees down the road and you have less small businesses that can compete with the mega corp and soon have no where else to shop....

look at the big picture... I seen it happen to my old small town, it became bigger, but it was never the same

.

 

I'm not fond of them as a socialist I would give workers half the seats on the Board of Directors and have to share profits with workers.

 

A lot of towns in NJ still have a thriving downtown with shops who offer much better quality products than the megastores, especially food, and when you actually compare prices, you find the small shops are only marginally more expensive, certainly not twice the price. I consider Walmart a store for poor people, and they mostly can only find a foothold up here in or near the ghettos.

 

Shorter hours, poorer selections, higher prices, and a miserable parking situation? Yeah, great "benefits", dude!

 

If the lib boutiques are so great why are libs terrified by competition from Walmart?

 

Walmart has the highest number of employees in the country compared to other businesses. They are also a self insured employer group for health coverage. What this means that their entire population of employees are not part of the insurance pool. The health insurance only administer the plan while the employer pays full risk on its employee's healthcare.

Walmart, because they are self insured has created higher premiums and out of pocket costs to other businesses trying to pay for health coverage for their employees. How did they contribute to this problem is due to the fact that health insurance companies base their rates on how many individuals are fully insured through them. All large corporations that became self insured employers removed that insurance pool from health insurance companies.

In 2011, the number of people that were fully insured by the health insurance companies was only 11 million people. This is why we have the mandate for health coverage for it will increase the insurance pool of people that are now fully insured. Self insured employers make money off their employees that contribute a share of the premiums that are deposited in the employer's bank account with a small percentage given to the health insurance company that administer the plan.

Employers do not hire sick people so they will only retain those employees who seldom require medical services in the duration of their employment. As soon as any on of those people that develop a chronic condition or cancer usually can not keep their job very long due to loss time at work. This gets the employer out of paying for regular care for an employee that can no longer work for them. Of course the employer will never admit this is the reason for letting a sick employee go as the reason why they are losing their job.

There is no reason for Walmart to not be able to afford health coverage for every single employee whether they worked full or part time. Laws for self insured employers requires changes made under ERISA so they are not allowed to get out of paying for all of their employees. This won't happen though if the employers are paying big contributions to fund political campaigns. However, the tax payers are now left with picking up the tab for those people that work for these employers but don't get benefits from them.

 

Translation:

Walmart is smart, bleeding heart libs who want government to wipe every nose are stupid, so Walmart must be punished.

 

Translation is Walmart is a greedy company that really does not contribute to the health of our economics.

 

So in your mind Walmart exists to serve humanity?

 

First things first most walmarts do not pay more than minimum wage, certain areas they have to pay more only because all other crap jobs pay more because of the cost or they wouldnt have employees.

 

Lib Boutiques? Hahaha...I love you Mac; you're so funny!

 

What's humanity without cheap shampoo and deodorant?

You can cry all day long but nothing will change the fact that Walmart gives it's customers EXACTLY what they want. That's the beauty of free market systems. All you crybabies can spend double at your local ma and pa stores if you like. Isn't choice wonderful?

 

Is it really double the price around you? Geez, go somewhere with some people. Downtowns and Walmarts are both successful in NJ probably because there's enough people to support both of them, and the little shops can charge prices only slightly more expensive, if more at all, than Walmart because they still have enough of a customer base.

I was just looking at Walmart's grocery selection online. You can purchase a loaf of factory manufactured rye bread from there at about $3.25 (in bulk with a purchase of 12 loaves). I purchase a same-day store-made loaf of rye at an award-winning local bakery for $3.99. I know a Russian bakery right around the corner from me where I can purchase homemade veal hot dogs for $3.99 a pound. I can't even find veal hot dogs on the Walmart website.

So I call shenanigans on this double-the-price argument because it simply doesn't hold up to scrutiny (unless its a regional issue, in which case, sucks for you because choice is only really wonderful when you can enjoy the better half of it).

 

It was rhetorical......

 

Translation: it was bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

OK so Walmart is so successful because they sell higher priced goods and services than their competitors.....

The POINT WAS if you want to pay MORE for your products then go ahead. Most consumers DON'T and WON'T.

 

And dollars spent that send kids to dance lessons, pay for a tutor, and help send kids to college.

On a more clear note, the money spent at a local store is re-invested in the community.

Shorter hours, poorer selections, and high prices are small sacrifices to minimum wage jobs and profits in the billions exported out of communities.

But hey.... if you like reducing the local economy strength like our foreign policy does on a national level, go to Walmart.

 

Ah yes... the old economic isolationist ideology in a GLOBAL economy..... So.... 1950's.

 

Did I say Walmart was more expensive? Oh, wait, this is "rhetorical", too, right?

Yeah, obviously. I'm just calling you out, and everyone else on this thread, who exaggerate the difference for dramatic effect. Let's have an honest discussion on the price differences between local stores and Walmart.

That's not the case in areas where people can afford better. Plus, it's not as simple as one store is cheaper than the other. For marginally more expense, the local stores provide fresher and higher-quality products with better service by professionals who actually have expertise and knowledge about their products.

 

If America still had the economic protection from cheap foreign products we enjoyed in the 1950's libs could not justify the welfare state we are cursed with today.

 

You called bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on a rhetorical argument that Walmart has cheaper prices and goods.

Thanks for FINALLY coming clean and admitting Walmart not only has cheaper goods and services, but MOST people shop there which is WHY they're SO SUCCESSFUL!

Lets. Walmart offers cheaper goods and services which is what consumers want.

Glad we had this conversation.

You mean Walmart doesn't own 100% of the market on retail goods and services!?!?!?!?!?! That's a SHOCKING revelation!!!!

Hey look? Free country, free market. You want to "feel good" buying local stuff go right ahead. I love it when people have the freedom to shop wherever they want. Unfortunately for you and your 1950's ideology, MOST people choose Walmart.

I think I'm heading over there right now for some chips and dip!!! Football soon!

- - - Updated - - -

Take a CURRENT economics course and get back to me....

 

No, I called Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) on your claim of double the price at local stores. Please pay closer attention.

Walmart offers marginally cheaper goods and services, not at half the price, as you initially claimed.

You seem to think I have some anger toward Walmart. Again, please try to read my posts more carefully because I said nothing to the effect. I even commented earlier that Walmart is a good choice for poor people. And I couldn't care less about feeling good or helping the community. I shop at local stores because they have better services and products. If they could offer me that at Walmart, that's where I'd be. In fact, I do shop at Walmart for certain items, such as toys, video games, etc, because they do offer these products at marginally cheaper prices than smaller retailers, and the local stores can't offer better quality on such items.

 

And I responded it was rhetorical. THAT doesn't discount the point that Walmart is SUCCESSFUL because it provides what MOST people want to consume, cheap products and services.

You're free to pay more for the same item if it makes you "feel better".

Walmart offers what consumers want which is why they're so successful. You have a problem with simple facts?

I read your posts. The problem with them is they aren't TRUE for large portions of the country which is WHY Walmart is so successful DUH.