10 good reasons not to shop at WAL*MART

[jczeroman]

by ******ce Vance
Are there any "good" reasons to not shop at Wal-Mart? We have been given plenty of "bad" reasons by the likes of not only New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and Sojourners magazine, but also our friends at Chronicles and The American Conservative magazines. According to these unlikely allies of the far left, Wal-Mart destroys jobs, puts mom & pop operations out of business, is anti-union, pays low wages, exploits its workers, practices predatory pricing, destroys small towns, is too big, sells too much junk, doesn't provide health insurance to all of its employees, and, when all else fails, buys too much from "Red" China.

This is all bunk, of course, but still, "good" reasons can be given for not shopping at Wal-Mart...

Good reason #1: Crowds
Wal-Mart is usually crowded. If you don't like crowds, then you probably shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart. However, the same thing could be said about trying to get into a good restaurant on Friday night — at least in Pensacola, Florida. Do you want to save money but don't like crowds? Most Wal-Marts are open 24/7. Get there early in the morning or late at night. If you are in a hurry to shop on your way home from work, then fight the crowds or go somewhere else.

Good reason #2: Parking
Although Wal-Mart has one of the largest parking lots of any one store, it can be tough to find a parking space on a Saturday afternoon. Many of the open spaces are quite some distance from the store. With gas prices as high as they are, no one wants to burn up their precious gas circling the parking lot at Wal-Mart looking for a parking space. The solution? Shop at another time or get some exercise and walk the distance from the parking spots that are the farthest out. You needed to loss some weight anyway. If you don't want to go to Wal-Mart during the week or you would rather not get some exercise, then shop somewhere else — the parking lot at K-Mart is usually empty.

Good reason #3: Carts
When Wal-Mart gets really busy, the shopping carts disappear fast. There is nothing more frustrating than to park at the far end of the Wal-Mart parking lot, walk the distance up to the store, and then find that there are no shopping carts. Well, aside from going to another store, there is a solution. There are always shopping carts in the parking lot that can be brought up to the store as you walk from the back of the parking lot. And besides, with a shopping cart, you don't have to carry your returns — just put them in the buggy. If there are no carts to be found and you don't wish to wait for one, then go somewhere else this time or every time.

Good reason #4: Lines
Lines and Wal-Mart go hand-in-hand. There is a line of cars waiting to turn into the parking lot. There is a line of people filing out of the store that you have to stop and wait for as you drive by the front of the store. There is a line of people at the deli getting their meat and cheese sliced. There is a line of people at the checkouts. There is a line of people at the return counter. The worst line is the line of people waiting to get the oil changed in their car (if their Wal-Mart has a tire and lube department). If someone doesn't like lines (like me), then he probably shouldn't shop at Wal-Mart. The solution? Don't shop at Wal-Mart during peak times — go to Dollar General or Target. Still adamant about shopping at Wal-Mart? Bring a book to read while you are waiting in line. I always drop off my truck, van, and SUV (I haven't driven a car for years) to avoid waiting in line. Don't have a book or time to wait in line? Spend an extra $10 and get your oil changed at a mom & pop quick lube.

Good reason #5: Cashiers
Although Wal-Mart has a multitude of checkouts, there is often a shortage of cashiers to man the checkouts. My pleas to the four supervisors standing around to get some additional cashiers usually go unheeded. True, I rarely have to wait at K-Mart. However, I don't like shopping at K-Mart — that is why I shop at Wal-Mart. So, what's the solution? See good reason #4.

Good reason #6: Inventory
Although each Wal-Mart has thousands of feet of shelves, sometimes they are empty. At the Wal-Mart I usually shop at, first it was pineapples, and then it was pinto beans — every time we went in the store the shelf was empty. Granted, we were looking for the Wal-Mart brand of pineapples and pinto beans, but still, we expected the shelves to be full of inventory. If someone is tired of empty shelves at Wal-Mart, then he can go somewhere else. But there is a reason that the shelves are always full at some other store — no one is shopping there. If full shelves for every item are more important to you than low prices and full shelves for most items, then by all means shop somewhere else.

Good reason #7: Selection
I'll be the first one to admit, it is annoying to go back to Wal-Mart a few weeks after a purchase and look for the same item only to find that it is no longer carried or has been replaced by something else that is similar, but not what I wanted. But I am not dumb enough to think for a minute that I am entitled to be able to purchase the same identical item — even on the next day. If you don't like Wal-Mart for this reason then take your business elsewhere.

Good reason #8: Self-checkout registers
I like self-checkout registers. However, I like them better when they work. The self-checkout registers at the Wal-Mart nearest my house always seem to be either closed or suffering from some glitch that entails tracking down the cashier who oversees them. This is really a minor problem, however, since no one is forced to use the self-checkout registers. These registers are far outnumbered by the regular ones with live cashiers. But for those who insist on using the self-checkout registers, other stores have them as well and would be glad to have the extra business.

Good reason #9: Prices
Contrary to popular opinion, the prices at Wal-Mart are not always the lowest. Milk, for example, can always be purchased cheaper somewhere else — at least where I live. But is it really worth the time and the gas to pick up something at another store for a lower price when the same identical item can be purchased while you are already in Wal-Mart? Not usually.

Good reason #10: Getting Help
Looking for someone in charge of a particular department at Wal-Mart who has not left early and is not on break? You might want to think about it — a long time. I know this is not true in every department at every Wal-Mart, but it invariably happens when you need some information in a hurry. This may be a "good" reason not to shop at Wal-Mart for a particular item, but certainly not to boycott the store altogether. If it bothers you that much then take your business elsewhere.

If you still prefer the "bad" reasons for not shopping at Wal-Mart then by all means don't shop at Wal-Mart. Just quit citing your bogus reasons as if they were facts.

Wal-Mart has never caused any firm to go out of business. Wal-Mart can't close down any store but one of its own. It is the customers who no longer do business with a company or shop at a particular store who put that company out of business or closed that store. Wal-Mart has never caused any person to become unemployed. Wal-Mart can't cause anyone to be unemployed except its own employees. If Wal-Mart treats its employees so badly, why do so many thousands of Americans work there? Are they too stupid to know that they are being exploited by greedy capitalists? Do they not know that they are earning subsistence wages? Are they not smart enough to know that their health is in jeopardy because they lack health insurance? Why is it that the people so concerned about how Wal-Mart treats its employees don't work for the company?

No one is forced to work or to shop at Wal-Mart. The employees of Wal-Mart vote in favor of the company with their feet when they show up for work. The customers of Wal-Mart vote in favor of the company with their wallet when they do their shopping.

Whatever your reason, if you don't like Wal-Mart, then don't shop there and don't work there. And if it makes you feel better, don't live in any town that has a Wal-Mart store. Just don't expect us to do likewise.

[DeviousJ]

Do you actually believe that though? That there aren't any situations where Walmart hasn't used its massive buying power to undercut the competition and run sustained strategies to price them out of the market, causing them to go broke? And that the same can't be said of employees of those companies, and that there aren't places where people work for Walmart not out of any particular approval or loyalty but because they've become the major employer in the area?

I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, but it seems a little silly to throw out a blanket assumption that walmart got where they are today by being all-round awesome. Business can be harsh, and if walmart holds enough of the cards they can wield a lot of influence, even if they're not walking into other companies and saying 'hey you! You're totally fired! I'm walmart'

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Do you actually believe that though? That there aren't any situations where Walmart hasn't used its massive buying power to undercut the competition and run sustained strategies to price them out of the market, causing them to go broke? And that the same can't be said of employees of those companies, and that there aren't places where people work for Walmart not out of any particular approval or loyalty but because they've become the major employer in the area?

But the point is that WalMart can't do anything without people volentarily chosing to both buy things there and work there. The reason WalMart has such buying power is becuase the people give them that power by shopping there and creating a huge demand vaccum. WalMart doesn't have a gun to threaten their competition with - all they have is market power - which is gained by people volentarily chosing to shop/work there. Walmart cannot use "force" to accomplish anythign because they only have the power that they get through people volentarily doing business with them.

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

I'm not saying whether it's right or wrong, but it seems a little silly to throw out a blanket assumption that walmart got where they are today by being all-round awesome. Business can be harsh, and if walmart holds enough of the cards they can wield a lot of influence, even if they're not walking into other companies and saying 'hey you! You're totally fired! I'm walmart'

Right. They have a lot of power - but they got that power through convincing people to work and shop there - in other words to do business with them. Suppliers don't have to distribute through WalMart. But because WalMart has been volentarily given power by their workers - they can set criteria that is very benefitial to them.

The point of the article is not that Walmart is the best company around. It simply says that WalMart does all of it's business by offering a choice: do business with us or don't, but business with us is going to benefit you. For the customer it means - we'll sell you stuff cheaper than anywhere else. For the supplier it means - we'll get more people to buy your stuff than other places will. For their employees it means - we'll pay you money to do basic, unskilled tasks. That's all they can do. They cannot say, "Shop here or die!", "supply us or die" or "work for us or die!" But they have the advantage of saying, "if you don't do these things with us, then you are going to lose out." What they offer is a benefit above the standard if they weren't there. If it weren't a benefit, people would not choose it. Or, better said, if WalMart wasn't the lesser evil in this cruel, hard world, then peopel wouldn't choose it.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

But the point is that WalMart can't do anything without people volentarily chosing to both buy things there and work there. The reason WalMart has such buying power is becuase the people give them that power by shopping there and creating a huge demand vaccum. WalMart doesn't have a gun to threaten their competition with - all they have is market power - which is gained by people volentarily chosing to shop/work there. Walmart cannot use "force" to accomplish anythign because they only have the power that they get through people volentarily doing business with them.

Yeah, but people can voluntarily do almost everything. Just because they're choosing a particular option doesn't mean their choice isn't being influenced to some degree - lower prices, availability, local employment opportunities etc. You really don't think walmart can use force to control these factors? I'm talking in terms of economic force, not hired goons smashing up local businesses

Originally Posted by jczeroman

"if you don't do these things with us, then you are going to lose out."

That's what I mean, only from a slightly different angle. Walmart obviously got where it is today by being clever, good with business and offering an alternative that many people took advantage of. But there came a point where the company had enough power to be able to directly influence the market in other ways, right? Aggressive pricing tactics to drive out competition, exclusivity deals with suppliers, even (like you mentioned) the notion that not supplying through walmart would give suppliers a much smaller shot at the market - when they're large enough to control a massive share of that market, it's much less of a choice.

And it's not like this isn't the way they work at times - look at that thing with them pushing for a higher minimum wage in areas where they already paid more than rival companies. I'm not saying (necessarily) that this is all they ever do, but that article had a real sense of one-sidedness and ignoring these other factors. If he'd just left it as a bunch of observations about his experiences (without the qualifiers) I wouldn't have a problem with it

[FearFactory]

what a load of crap.

people are cheap and shop at walmart. everyone wants the most value for their money and I can understand that, but there are other stores that offer goods for around the same price. you just can't be lazy. search around and you'll find this out for yourself.

that being said, let me provide an example of how walmart will help destroy this country quicker than it would have without the help of walmart:

people buy groceries at walmart, resulting in the closure of several smaller markets. these people who worked at the markets must now find new jobs. some of them find their way to walmart. then, walmart opens up an auto shop. several small auto repair/oil change shops close down, and some of those employees find their way to walmart.

eventually, a significant portion of the population is working at walmart. then comes the day that the store closes. hopefully people were smart enough to be attending school during their employment at walmart, because that little badge they give you after 10 years of service isn't gonna mean jack shit to a potential employer... unless you're just looking for another wage slave position.

I'd imagine that most people wouldn't have been attending college and they're now fucked.

now, in other situations you can have so many local specialty stores closed down that walmart decides to jack up the prices. hey, there's no competition.. it's not like people are going to shop at closed businesses.

if you ask me, walmart is a scheme thought up by the republican party in order to eliminate the middle class.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

You really don't think walmart can use force to control these factors? I'm talking in terms of economic force, not hired goons smashing up local businesses

By economic force you mean "market power". Yes, they have more market power than anyone else by far. It's not unprecidented. Our generation doesn't remember that SEARS was actually bigger and badder than WalMark, and for much longer. But they got cocky (as WalMart will) and they become noncompetitive and all kinds of smaller businesses beat them up. This is the nature of things. It's cyclic.

This will happen as long as Walmart only has market power (and not government power) because that power, even though it is huge, cannot be attained through anything other than volentary consent of the customers of WalMart. As soon as they piss off the customers they will suffer. If they aren't pissing off the customers, their suppliers and workers then they are going to run a business and there is nothign you, I an activist group or the government should do about it.
Economic force" is a contradiction in terms.

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Walmart obviously got where it is today by being clever, good with business and offering an alternative that many people took advantage of. But there came a point where the company had enough power to be able to directly influence the market in other ways, right? Aggressive pricing tactics to drive out competition, exclusivity deals with suppliers, even (like you mentioned) the notion that not supplying through walmart would give suppliers a much smaller shot at the market - when they're large enough to control a massive share of that market, it's much less of a choice.

You wrote that out very nice. Just look at it again, but draw the right conclusion this time:

- WalMart is clever and runs a good business and builds a huge freaking market.
- they build a big enough market to exercise power over it.
- they exploit that power to it's greatest profit, killing most of their competition's markets and absorbing them into their own.

WalMart built what they control. They made it. It is theirs. They do or do not let people do business with their market based on whatever terms they draw up and their market agrees to. It is theirs. The fact that other, less profitable markets can't compete is a fact of life. They have no right to do business with WalMart if WalMart doesn't want to do business with them. That *******s employees who want benefits that WalMart doesn't want to provide, customers who want quality instad of cheap prices, or suppliers who want to charge more for their products. The huge demand vaccum that WalMart created wouldn't be there if they hadn't done these things. If WalMart hadn't demanded lower prices from suppliers and workers who don't want benefits their market power would not be even close to what it is today.

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

And it's not like this isn't the way they work at times - look at that thing with them pushing for a higher minimum wage in areas where they already paid more than rival companies.

Yes, that is an example of WalMart using true force and it is unethical in my opinion. What a person makes and gets in benefits is between them and their employer and is none of mine no rthe government's business.

[Mayfuck]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

But the point is that WalMart can't do anything without people volentarily chosing to both buy things there and work there.

Just because people have voluntarily chose something doesn't make that choice right choice and doesn't justify the presence of their choice. People make choices all the time and often in our society they make not the best choice but the laziest choice. Shopping at Walmart is a lazy choice because it's easy to be suckered in by their low prices without regard to the low wages they give their employees, crummy benefits, encouragement of sprawl, sustaining a poverty base and shafting communities. We need conscientious checks against lazy choices made by citizens which is why efforts--like the ones here in L.A. county where several city councils have made it very difficult to open super Walmarts around L.A.--are needed.

[FearFactory]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Just because people have voluntarily chose something doesn't make that choice right choice and doesn't justify the presence of their choice. People make choices all the time and often in our society they make not the best choice but the laziest choice. Shopping at Walmart is a lazy choice because it's easy to be suckered in by their low prices without regard to the low wages they give their employees, crummy benefits, encouragement of sprawl, sustaining a poverty base and shafting communities. We need conscientious checks against lazy choices made by citizens which is why efforts--like the ones here in L.A. county where several city councils have made it very difficult to open super Walmarts around L.A.--are needed.

what about that one in panorama city? that one's sweeeeet!

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

Just because people have voluntarily chose something doesn't make that choice right choice and doesn't justify the presence of their choice. People make choices all the time and often in our society they make not the best choice but the laziest choice. Shopping at Walmart is a lazy choice because it's easy to be suckered in by their low prices without regard to the low wages they give their employees, crummy benefits, encouragement of sprawl, sustaining a poverty base and shafting communities.

I agree entirely with this. How do you think WalMart makes money? What do you think the average IQ is of someone who shops at WalMart vs. everyone else? Probably a bit lower at least - but I admit that I'm prejudiced there. But a choice is a choice. Limiting choices, even bad ones, is in violation of the human spirit, freewill and individual sovreignty. It assumes that some people aren't human enough to posess, exercise and live or die by their own freedom. It's the essense of censorship, slavery and totalitarianism. That is strong language but the principles really are the same.

Originally Posted by Mayfuck

We need conscientious checks against lazy choices made by citizens which is why efforts--like the ones here in L.A. county where several city councils have made it very difficult to open super Walmarts around L.A.--are needed.

We protect peopel by educating them about what consequnces are out there for certain choices. There is nothing wrong with letting peopel know all of the things that WalMart does, but if in light of those things people still want to make that choice - they should be allowed to. What you propose is dehumanization and demonization of views that you don't think are right. It is moral demogoguery. Quality education rises from peopel like you and me who, instead of limiting people's choices, show them how by evidence, logic and reason their choices can lead to bad consequences.

[Nimrod's Son]

I really onli buy propane tanks at Wal*Mart becuse they're half price of anywhere else and you don't need to go into the main store, only the home and garden

[patrick]

oh yeah, this thread

[FearFactory]

Colin, I'm getting you a spell-checker for your birthday.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

is in violation of the human spirit, freewill and individual sovreignty.

so? who says this is even a bad thing? your arguments on this -- and, lets not kid ourselves, everything -- always have themselves supported bythis kind of cheap play on emotions and sensationalism. as long as you will forever argue from your own, idiosyncratic (relative to other netphorians) position of the individual being entirely absolute and the collective/society being irrelevant, youll never get anywhere. thats an oversimplification of your position, i hope, but were one to just go by the implicit presuppositions inherent in your arguments its not really at all. the point is that youre always speaking another language, and thats something i can not accept that youre not aware of. its really annoying too, your fundamentalism is. its like if, lets say, you were as orthodox a marxist as you were a libertarian and came into any and every thread, regardless of stated topic, and started lecturing about what it is relative to the class struggle or some shit. its just useless and dishonest. with you, it seems, reality is filtered by and adapts itself to your own adopted theoretical framework, not the other way around. and witht his character trait in mind its no surprise that youre a nutbar christian. i mean, i was actually surprised when mayfuck was so kind to reveal it, but after about 2 seconds of thought it all made perfect sense. the way you adopt the tenants of libertarianism en masse is pretty much exactly the same, in principle and form, as one does a religion. and what does this reflect about you? its not irrelevant. faith is pretty much by definition not acquired by reasoning, and you have displayed a pretty remarkable tendency towards simple recitation rather than actual reflection. that isnt to say you dont ever reflect or whatever, but that theres a general trend here.

i only address this because its easy to recognize this fundamental gap, this problem in communication between you and everyone else, as being the main impediment to any kind of progress. so what if something impugned on freedoms? unless you are advocating absolute, as opposed to just a maximized, freedom, that point means shit and is just another appeal to emotion. like i said before, these ideas of freedom and force are incredibly specious and are really improper to use in discussion the way you do. i understand that, behind all of that appeal, there are legitimate ideas there but often times, it seems, people depend on that appeal to support the idea. so with this freedom thing: should i have the freedom to go kill you or rape children or something? i shouldnt, you say? im a free soul, a son of christ or whatever, some divine human spirit that yearns for the fruits of freedom, but yet im not allowed to go kill you? well i would say that thats limiting my choices, jczeroman, and is infringing on my individual rights and sovereignty, but im aware that the question was never if something infringes. its always, rather, been a question about where the line is going to be drawn, wouldnt you agree? therefore, cut the shit

[sleeper]

with this walmart thing i think there a few different strains to it and, in all honesty, i have to yet to really reconcile them all and come to any kind of conclusion. just in general i have very few actual hard beliefs or convictions when it coems to politics and pretty much every idea i have is a work in progress, as i think, if you have any measure of honestly and desire to not turn into some kind of adherent first and thinking, open minded human being second, they should forever remain. but im going to get at them indirectly through the asking of two general, open questions (to anyone):

-what do you think about anti-trust laws? (predatory pricing, for instance, incase you werent aware, is illegal in the US)
-does a community have the right (or not if they have the right, but if they are right or should have the right) to (after, hypothetically speaking, some kind of plebiscite or whatever) impose certain restrictions or conditions on a walmart being built in their neighbourhood?

[sleeper]

also, i briefly read this thing recently (i cannot, for the life of me, remember where) that mentioned how its wrong to criticize rich people who are buying hummers on grounds of pollution without, you know, offering (or being willing to offer, i guess) the same level of criticism to poor people who buy outmoded gas guzzling rust buckets that pollute just as much. i thought about this and have come upon an important, pretty obvious, distinction to make (that has directly implications to the whole broader issue at play here) but im curious to know what others think of this idea vis a vis this idea that both are fundamentally "voluntary." just asking, trying to exchange some ideas and shit, no biggie


and, i have to say, a great counterpoint to any discussion of walmart is costco. they dont target the same class and everything, are different in nature (warehouse retailer), and i dont know what anyone else knows about them and their practices that i might be missing, but theres a place you can basically feel proud shopping at.

heres a great article on them that i read a while ago for anyone that is interested:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/bu...pagewanted=all

an interesting highlight:

Costco's average pay, for example, is $17 an hour, 42 percent higher than its fiercest rival, Sam's Club. And Costco's health plan makes those at many other retailers look Scroogish. One analyst, Bill Dreher of Deutsche Bank, complained last year that at Costco "it's better to be an employee or a customer than a shareholder."

Mr. Sinegal begs to differ. He rejects Wall Street's assumption that to succeed in discount retailing, companies must pay poorly and skimp on benefits, or must ratchet up prices to meet Wall Street's profit demands.

Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."

that last statement is only becoming more true with time. people are becoming more and more aware as to the implications of their purchasing habits and are really becoming vigilant. relatively, of course. but thats something we could all use more of in general. consumers should, in my opinion, reward as far as possible companies that not only offer low prices but have socially responsible practices (as per their definition of socially responsible)

[wHATcOLOR]

wal-mart is trying to get into the banking business, no joke. they want to issue credit cards and everything

[Junebug]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

Whatever your reason, if you don't like Wal-Mart, then don't shop there and don't work there.

done.


seriously, as much as I hate wal-mart and all its dirty tricks, i feel you can only blame the consumers for its success.

[christian zombie vampires]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

We protect peopel by educating them about what consequnces are out there for certain choices. There is nothing wrong with letting peopel know all of the things that WalMart does, but if in light of those things people still want to make that choice - they should be allowed to. What you propose is dehumanization and demonization of views that you don't think are right. It is moral demogoguery. Quality education rises from peopel like you and me who, instead of limiting people's choices, show them how by evidence, logic and reason their choices can lead to bad consequences.

even the most ignorant moron is aware on some level that shopping at walmart is a lazy decision and working there is a shitty deal. we're slaves to convenience, just walk into a mcdonalds and you can hear people complaining about the product and employees complaining about the job yet there they are. laws and social institutions need to be in place and enforced to keep companies (and pretty much everyone for that matter) accountable. the only way people don't choose to be lazy is if the choice isn't there.

[Junebug]

Originally Posted by christian zombie vampires

the only way people don't choose to be lazy is if the choice isn't there.

and how did you come to this conclusion?

[benjamin619]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

I really onli buy propane tanks at Wal*Mart becuse they're half price of anywhere else and you don't need to go into the main store, only the home and garden

This is everyman's reason for shopping at Wal*Mart. Because motor oil is cheaper. Because the lawnmowers are cheaper. Because the electric razors, and cereal are cheaper.

So is it a lazy decision or a smart, economic one?

[bornentertainer]

Originally Posted by benjamin619

This is everyman's reason for shopping at Wal*Mart. Because motor oil is cheaper. Because the lawnmowers are cheaper. Because the electric razors, and cereal are cheaper.

So is it a lazy decision or a smart, economic one?

Yeah. I'm gonna buy stuff where I can get it cheapest. Also, if I need to get a bunch of stuff and I can get it in one place, I'd much rather do that than run around everywhere.

I don't see why people are so concerned with where other people shop.

And for the record, I shop at Target. I hate Walmart.

[sleeper]

Originally Posted by benjamin619

This is everyman's reason for shopping at Wal*Mart. Because motor oil is cheaper. Because the lawnmowers are cheaper. Because the electric razors, and cereal are cheaper.

So is it a lazy decision or a smart, economic one?

well, for one, that depends, i think, on if you weigh any other factors into your decision, or if that kind of strictly utilitarian thinking is all that youre about. i would, for instance, gladly pay a bit more to support a company whose practices i feel are socially responsible and moral, and i would indeed fault a company if they offered the cheap prices they do at the specific expense of those things. its highyl personal, but i can say unequivocally that i think its wrong for someone to act as if something like low prices are utterly supreme, because theres a lot more to things than that. this is an extreme example, but what about something like, say, blood diamonds? good diamonds, am i wrong? nice shiny -- cheap! (i dont know if thats true). or what about, hypothetically speaking, the dirt, dirt cheap products of some company in some foreign land that uses slave labour? not just sweatshop, but lets say slaves. im sure that shit would be incredibly cheap, and you, smart economist that you are, would rationally make the right choice towards the cheaper good

another point is that, while a lot of their products are cheaper, a lot are also poorer quality. its the same pepsi there as anywhere, but some of the other goods i mean. thats why places like target exist, though, to supply that bracket that wants higher quality, but still cheap, goods

[Corganist]

Originally Posted by christian zombie vampires

even the most ignorant moron is aware on some level that shopping at walmart is a lazy decision and working there is a shitty deal.

Says who? People always make these statements as though they're obvious. I worked at Wal-Mart. It wasn't grand enough to make me change my career plans, but it wasn't a shitty deal. And the vast majority of the people I worked with didn't seem to think its a shitty deal either. That's not to say that everyone had a wonderful time, were doing fulfilling and life-enhancing work, and were making loads of money...but hey, a job's a job. I really find it insulting when people who look down upon the decision to even shop at Wal-Mart shed crocodile tears for people that work there. Most of them don't want or need the sympathy.

As for this notion that shopping at Wal-Mart is a "lazy" decision, I guess you're entitled to whatever justification you want for not shopping there. It smacks of self-importance to me though for one to pretend that spending 20 dollars more a week on groceries is really a noble act that would save the world if only more people did it. It seems to me a simple "I don't like to shop there" would probably suffice. It'd be accurate, and it wouldn't be nearly as condescending towards people with a differing opinion.

we're slaves to convenience, just walk into a mcdonalds and you can hear people complaining about the product and employees complaining about the job yet there they are

You can walk into any store offering any product, and you're equally as apt to find people complaining about something. Lawyers don't like working anymore than cashiers do. Mom and Pop sell cheap shit that breaks. Asshole customers shop in the big chain stores and the small boutiques. Hating the commercial grind is something as old as commerce itself. It didn't just start 20 or 30 years ago.

laws and social institutions need to be in place and enforced to keep companies (and pretty much everyone for that matter) accountable. the only way people don't choose to be lazy is if the choice isn't there.

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. And I really don't think you do either.

[DeviousJ]

Originally Posted by jczeroman

WalMart built what they control. They made it. It is theirs. They do or do not let people do business with their market based on whatever terms they draw up and their market agrees to. It is theirs. The fact that other, less profitable markets can't compete is a fact of life. They have no right to do business with WalMart if WalMart doesn't want to do business with them. That *******s employees who want benefits that WalMart doesn't want to provide, customers who want quality instad of cheap prices, or suppliers who want to charge more for their products. The huge demand vaccum that WalMart created wouldn't be there if they hadn't done these things. If WalMart hadn't demanded lower prices from suppliers and workers who don't want benefits their market power would not be even close to what it is today.

Right - but that's what I'm saying. The end of that essay you posted basically comes to the conclusion that people shop at walmart because it's awesome, and people work for walmart because it's awesome. That's why they're all voting with their feet, right? But you just agreed with me that walmart uses its accrued market power to influence that market, running out rival businesses meaning people have less choice about where they can shop or work. Just because someone isn't being forced at gunpoint to do something, it doesn't mean they're doing it 'voluntarily' (which is a word with many many shades of meaning).

Not that this applies to everyone and in every case obviously, but that article's an example of someone objecting to the way an issue's being portrayed, and going right out there to tout a contrary, equally flawed argument

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by FearFactory

Colin, I'm getting you a spell-checker for your birthday.

Thanks. I am so bad at it...

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

Right - but that's what I'm saying. The end of that essay you posted basically comes to the conclusion that people shop at walmart because it's awesome, and people work for walmart because it's awesome. That's why they're all voting with their feet, right? But you just agreed with me that walmart uses its accrued market power to influence that market, running out rival businesses meaning people have less choice about where they can shop or work. Just because someone isn't being forced at gunpoint to do something, it doesn't mean they're doing it 'voluntarily' (which is a word with many many shades of meaning).

I guess I don't read the end of the article as "walmart is awesome". I read it as, "Walmart" presents a better choice than "not walmart" for a lot of people in a lot of different ways. People limit their options in life - don't go to school, go to a crappy school, don't learn to read and write, do a bunch of drugs, etc... then your "choices" are going to be pretty limited. Be a kid with no experience, no skills, an underdeveloped work ethic, etc... your options aren't that great. Have a few babies, marry a deadbeat who leaves you and steals all your money and have five generations of parents that went through the same thing - you have little to pick from.

[DeviousJ]

But he's saying 'walmart presents a better choice for these people otherwise they wouldn't work/shop there' when that's a simplification. He's trying to pretend that the other issues don't exist by waving them aside and making absolute statements about 'the facts', that's what I have a problem with

[jczeroman]

This is kind of neat. I really never considered myself worthy of such attention, but I seem to see as many of your threads painting me into a narrow-minded, intellectual fascist drone as you see of mine preaching the capitalist gospel. I respond to a few of these points, but for the most part, I think these kind of threads from you are pretty worthless.

Originally Posted by sleeper

with you, it seems, reality is filtered by and adapts itself to your own adopted theoretical framework, not the other way around.

Everyone, I mean everyone has a worldview that is constantly being shaped by the things around them. The information they gain is assimilated into that view, sometimes it changes it a little, sometimes a lot.

Originally Posted by sleeper

i only address this because its easy to recognize this fundamental gap, this problem in communication between you and everyone else, as being the main impediment to any kind of progress.

Look at the tenor of the politics board and to a lesser extent even this thread. With the exception of Mariner, most people don't take small issues to the point of basic individualist philosophy. For the most part, this is because they simply understand it - it's just intuitive. Look at ****** or BornEntertainer - they aren't "crazy" like me, but their language smacks of individualst undertones - maybe even they don't see it, but it's there.

You write such a long appeals on my person and my belief system, often citing a "disconnect from the public" as your main sense of reasoning. First of all, whether people en masse understand or empathize with me or not isn't really the goal of the articulation of my opinions.

Havign said that I have noticed quite the opposite of what you have. My earlier conversations with some like debaser, were very disconnected, now I feel very comfortable with where he is coming from and I believe the feeling is mutal. He don't liek my views, but I think he understand's their fundamental genesis. He's gotten way past the idea that I'm a parrot-box or an ideologue. Even Rhino, who leveled these same kind of accusations many times, with even more frequency than you, and still levels them when he's pissed off, recognises that what you are saying simply is not true.

I have full confidence that every "ideological adversary" I encounter will eventually gain respect for my views. Since I'm not out to convert people, but to learn, thsi is great by me. Think about it: do you think I was born with my political views? Do you think I was born a Christian? I have been proven wrong more times then I have ever felt "right" on an issue. Again, I have been wrong much more in my life, than right. How do you think we learn things? How do you think I have learned what I have?

I have been down the road of Atheism, Communism, Socialism, Republicanism, Liberalism, Fascism, Nationalism, etc... albeit many of these in youth. But perhaps in five or ten years I will look back at mean of the things I believe now as incorrect. In fact, I'm sure I will because I refuse to put what I learn about this universe through a filter or censor. I'd rather die.

I'm not sure why you see things the way you do. I hope you don't walk around judging others so narrowly.

[jczeroman]

Originally Posted by DeviousJ

But he's saying 'walmart presents a better choice for these people otherwise they wouldn't work/shop there' when that's a simplification. He's trying to pretend that the other issues don't exist by waving them aside and making absolute statements about 'the facts', that's what I have a problem with

That is true though. He doesn't say WalMart is awesome, he says it's better. Is it not?

Many of these people, without WalMart, wouldn't have jobs.
Many of these custoemrs, withotu WalMart, wouldn't be able to get the things they need/want so cheap.
Many of these suppliers, without WalMart, wouldnt be able to make such profits.

If it weren't better, cheaper more profitable than people wouldn't do it. It's doesn't mean it's awesome - it means it's "better than the alternative."

[Orenthal James]

so like, eggs are really cheap at walmart