400 jobs; 10,000 applicants

How much more specific an I be? I showed that they have kept inflation in check, by single-handedly lowering the CPI by more than 3.1 percent at the same time that real wages decreased by 2.2. percent. As I suggested do the math. That leaves people with almost 1 percent more discretionary income.

"They treat their employess like crap" is unspecific. And I pointed out the obvious to give you your specific: 10,000 people are lined up fighting for 400 jobs. I guess "being treated likecrap" is better than being tied to a poorly run industry that has NO jobs, or one that has gotten so tangled with unskilled labor making unreasonable demands that the jobs have been exported to Asia. That isn't "theory." It's reality. 10,000 people want 400 jobs at that local WalMart because WalMart is the one actually providing jobs. How immoral of them for offering jobs when no one else is. The fact that demand is outstripping the supply of those jobs isn't "specific" enough for you? Call it capitalist theory. I call it reality. And I fail to see why WalMart is a villain for running a business intelligently, one that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs, and one that has had an immeasurable effect on the U.S. economy by keeping inflation in check, by keeping prices three percent lower than they would have been since the 1980s.

I suggest you reread what I wrote, because those ARE specifics.

 

Ace, you are either blithely ignoring what I wrote or you just don't understand. When your spending power increases more than your wages have decreased, you end up with more discretionary income. YOU ARE BETTER OFF, even if your income has decreased, because everything is cheaper by more than your drop in income. Anyone RATIONAL gives a crap about that. It's about maintaining your lifestyle. WalMart has had more impact on people's spending power than any entity in the U.S. since the mid-80s. It has had a wildly positive effect on our economy--so much so that it has been studied ad nauseum. WE BENEFIT FROM WAL-MART. You really should give a crap, but I'll stop trying to convince others to look at things rationally.

And again, that aspect, which is WalMart's greatest impact, ignores the other obvious thing. The fact that 10,000 people are fighting for 400 jobs is a reflection of how poorly run all those businesses you consider "fair" are operating. They don't have jobs to offer. They're either out of business or have given way to operations in Asia. Demonizing WalMart for actually running an efficient business and offering those struggling people work, just plain baffles me. Obviously they agree with me. 10,000 people, with no other options, are all too eager to avail themselves of the jobs the company that is running itself intelligently has to offer.

 

One other thing... This argument defies reason. If you make crappy lawnmowers that crap out after a year (again, this is anecdotal more than quantifiable) over time consumers are going to do the rational and not buy them. It's not a good value. Yet, consumers do shop at WalMart. So something about the price to quality mix must work.

As for the health care benefits, it's unfortunate, but again, let's look at the obvious. 10,000 people lined up for 400 jobs, without them even having advertised. Obviously they don't have to offer health care benefits to attract a qualified workforce. They are not a social welfare program. They are a business. They could offer higher wages, and better benefits and allow their suppliers higher margins (which I suspect you think would increase the quality of their products). But then they would be like lots of other industries that have been priced out of business, and those 400 jobs wouldn't even be available -- health care benefits or not. WalMart isn't to blame for this. They are just operating intelligently. If so many other industries hadn't run themselves so poorly and labor unions and government interference (including regulation and tariffs) hadn't made operating in the U.S. so difficult, we'd have a larger industry base, more competition and a higher pool of available jobs to give workers more leverage. But that isn't the case. And without that leverage, WalMart is just acting rationally. They go beyond what they really have to offer, but they still keep their eye on their profit margin, which allows them to keep growing and keep creating jobs. They shouldn't be the villain in all this. The shmuck industries that ran themselves into the ground and now see all of their former worker's jobs overseas are the villains.

 

No arguments. CostCo is a very well-run company. The philosophy is that a happier workforce produces better. And they actually sell more per square foot than WalMart does. I have no quibbles with the CostCo model.

But the CostCo model has not had anything near the positive effect on our economy that WalMart has--mostly because of the sizes of the two companies. WalMart employes 1.6 million people globally. CostCo employs 113,000 employess. WalMart has close to 4,000 stores in this country. CostCo has 330. WalMart's net profits are close to $6 BILLION. CostCo, $882 MILLION.

But by all means, I encourage you to shop at CostCo. What they are doing is wonderful. They are just small potatoes compared to what WalMart has been able to do and on a larger scale, I am not certain if their model could work..

 

No clue what you are talking about. I suggest you check out my previous posts on this board and my posting style. I give opinions and ideas, and I try to back them up with fact and evidence. I rarely, if ever, characterize what others say, and I NEVER make strained posts like yours that ignore what the person said and attribute unrelated things to the person.

My posts speak for themselves. Among other things, I posted about why 10,000 people are lined up for 400 jobs. I posted about the impact that Wal-Mart has had on our economy and the affect it singlehandedly has had in keeping inflation in check for the last 15 years. My posts speak for themselves, without you mangling them. And I didn't come anywhere close to saying anything remotely close to what you just typed.

Why not just speak for yourself, instead of trying to speak for me? One, it it's simplest because you know what you want to say (I'd never deign to speak for you). Two, you aren't remotely qualified to speak for me, as demonstrated by what I quoted above.