400 jobs; 10,000 applicants

1) I am not "defending" anyone. Fine. They treat their employees "like crap" and the wages and benefits aren't "fair." Can you be any more imprecise? Of course, 10,000 people showed up for 400 jobs, so your definition of "fair" is not in line with what Wal-Mart has to pay in order to attract a workforce to man that store. Rationally, what they are offering would seem fair given job-market conditions, because demand for those jobs far exceeds the supply. If anything, I'd guess they could offer even "crappier" conditions and drive the demand down to 5,000 people. And as crappy as they treat their employees (something not easily quantified--needs to be pointed out again), again, 10,000 people applied for 400 jobs. As I pointed out, there is a reason for it. People need jobs. No one else is offering them. If you think WalMart is doing something immoral, step up and offer those 10,000 people jobs that you personally consider fair. No one is stopping you.

Between mismanaged industries, a flagging economy and corrupt labor unions that don't understand the word "leverage" (what unskilled workers don't have) and have thus "bargained" away jobs to Asia, the villain shouldn't be WalMart for actually running a business that is creating jobs (with the even bigger benefit that they are saving people money and have a huge impact on the economy by helping to keep inflation in check). The villians should be the people I mentioned in the sentence above.

2) Wal-Mart has no responsibility to anyone but it's owners who run a business to profit. By profiting, they have actually benefited the U.S. economy more than any single private entity over the last 15 years (read on). They have eliminated grocery stores, eh? Wal-Mart didn't do that. Consumers did. SHOCKINGLY, they'd rather shop at Wal-Mart, where they can get their goods more inexpensively. Through technology that has boosted productivity and its ability to shave costs by squeezing manufacturers, Wal-Mart has come up with a model that sells products cheaper. This drives store traffic and has driven the growth of the company. Consumers benefit because they spend less for non-discretionary (and discretionary) items, which leaves more money in their pockets. Why not point that out, when rambling about how crappy they treat people?

WalMart's pricing has helped keep the lid on inflation. No matter how you slice the various studies, since the mid 80s, WalMart has single-handedly given the U.S. consumer prices that are more than 3 percent cheaper than they would have been. This keeps inflation in check, and has been a huge boon to our economy. Even if I concede that they treat that their employees like shit (those 10,000 people lined up fighting for 400 jobs), the money those people have saved cumulatively, thanks to Wal-Mart, has actually more than offset the Wal-Mart wages. By one estimate, WalMart single-handedly has improved the overall efficiency of our economy by 0.75 percent. It has had a snowball effect that has affected other aspects of our economy, including lowering import prices -- something importers have needed to do to compete with WalMart's price, which again, benefits U.S. consumers in their pocketbooks. This has resulted in that more than 3 percent decline in prices (which has kept inflation in check). Nominal wages in the country during that time have decreased by 2.2 percent. Do the math. Wages have decreased by 2.2 percent. But people need to spend 3.1 percent less than they had to, to maintain their lifestyle. So the net effect by 2004 was that people's real disposable income had actually increased by close to 1 percent--almost single-handedly due to the Wal-Mart effect.

The "they are putting grocery stores out of business" argument isn't rational when looked at it with reason. Let those grocery stores compete with Wal-Mart. if not, we're better off with the more efficient entity, because our economy is better for it and people have more disposable income as a result. If more industries ran the way the retail industry is now running thanks to the Wal-Mart model, we'd all be better off and the U.S. economy would see drastic positive changes.

3) "Making sure they are the only game in town," again is something that is impossible to respond to. How exactly do they do this? Uzis or 300-pound thugs with brass knuckles? There is nothing stopping you from setting up shop and trying to compete with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart is doing absolutely nothing illegal. I have seen the ridiculous claims of predatory pricing, made by ignorant people. But for one thing, Wal-Mart is not THAT powerful. They can't afford to sell items at a loss very long, because they do have enough competition from other national retailers that it will affect the bottom line, and they have shareholders/owners who have their eye on the bottom line. And anyone who has studied any amount of economics knows that predatory pricing, when it has been tried, has NEVER been successful. It's irrational. You have to be able to sustain huge losses for a long period of time in order to drive all business away. And even a very large business, such as standard oil, could not afford to take those kinds of losses for that amount of time, without crumblng. There is nothing suggesting, or proving, that Wal-Mart has engaged in the practice. They are an open book. I encourage everyone to look at their bottom line. They are hardly operating at a loss. Even more persuasive, there has never been a case where predatory pricing has led to a monopoly. I challenge anyone to give the example -- because it doesn't exist. I can give examples of companies that brought themselves financial ruin trying it. But no examples of anyone creating a monopoly by irrationally operating a loss for an extended period of time to drive away competition. And today, there isn't an economist worth his salt, who puts any stock in predatory pricing being something that can actually be pulled off to positive effect. It is, however, a common claim used by companies that either can't, or don't want to, match their competitor's pricing. And it's the kind of stuff that gets thrown around on message boards by people who don't understand the economics involved (not necessarily you, but I have seen it on other WalMart threads).