Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/30/05 08:50 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/30/05 08:38 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Then blame the consumer, if you don't like it. Blame individual Americans. How's that for a 'human element', hm?
I'm tired of people shifting the blame from themselves (I'm not talking about you, Skunk. We all know you shop at Ma and Pa stores, and fruit stands, and shit).
Wal-Mart simply presented it's business. The consumers, and thier dollars, were what made Wal-Mart so big. The consumers are what keep Wal-Mart so big.
Wal-Mart isn't buying products from themselves, you know.

How quaintly Republican of you - blame the victim.

How is the consumer the victim?
Let's say I have ten dollars in my pocket. I can choose between 'Grannie's Hometown Electronics', or Wal-mart. I make the conscious choice to enter Wal-Mart, and give my money to them. In turn, I have made the conscious choice to not give a Mom and Pop my money.
Now take a million consumers, who all think they way. Are they not single-handedly supporting Wal-Mart?

How is it Wal-Mart's fault, if people choose to shop there? I'll ask you the same question I asked Capn: Should Wal-Mart raise their prices, to scare off customers? Should they clear out their inventory, to lower their selection, in an attempt to make less money?
Would you do that with your company, Red?
Oh, of course not. Because you're *snicker* a victim, right?

I don't want my capitilism to have a human face. I want it to be business, between companies and consumers....and nothing more.
Companies present, consumers choose. It's the very base of economics...it's not some faceless evil demon of a company.

And what's a damien post without a little empty rhetoric.

There was no rhetoric at all, in my post. I spoke nothing but truth.
Companies present, and consumers choose. Either you can prove that wrong, or you can't.
Not that I've any question on if you can, or not.

Says who?
Isn't that why any business starts?
You think my family started a construction company, so we could dig on the 'human element' of homeowners? Or do you think we started our company to make money?
Do you think 'Ma and Pa's old-timey crap' started up, because they wanted to 'serve the community'? Or do you think they did it to line their own pockets?

Come back to me in a few years when you've grown up a little, and your family's construction company is bankrupted because of a multinational.

Blue collar isn't the same as retail. You know that.
Most construction companies (even the small ones) are usually local. Even a majority of the 'huge' ones only cover four or five states.
The need for local blue collar work will never dissapear. I bet those in retail wish they could say the same, about their line of work.

It's almost the opposite, in blue collar, as it is in retail. Smaller companies can usually do contracts for way less money than a big company...just for the sole fact that small companies don't have three thousand employees.

Don't you worry your little wealth-hating head....my job's secure.

Because I guarantee you that a family-owned construction company in buttfuck, USA, is not the most economically rewarding way to go.

Blue-collar isn't the 'most economically rewarding way to go', no matter how big the company is. It never has been.
Someone, however, has to do it.

As long as we're talking business, with the human aspect removed, I hope there are enough Wal-Marts in your area for your family to work at.

Wal-Mart doesn't affect blue-collar, one way or another.
Actually, I take that back...companies like Wal-Mart are good for blue collar. Wal-Marts attract other companies, and residential housing. And guess who builds those houses, and those businesses?

At 7/30/05 08:32 PM, red_skunk wrote: These unemployed (unskilled) workers, who use to make good money in factories, now are forced to work other, less desirable jobs (say, Wal-Mart). Now they can only afford to shop there.

But then future generations, realizing that to make a decent living they'll have to get a decent education, will be more likely to finish school, apply for interships, etc. That'll leave the nation with a better skilled workforce, and outsourcing won't be the problem that it is today.

At 7/30/05 08:59 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/30/05 08:30 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Bigger, better companies dominate smaller, crappy companies. That's how it's always been.

And that's how it should be but the balance is out of whack.

No...that's exactly how it's happening.
Wal-Mart has better selection. Wal-Mart has better prices. These two things are the keys that allow a company to 'compete'.

The grounds for a company being a 'monopoly' goes above and beyond 'being better than everyone else'.
Wal-Mart is better than 'Dicks Sporting Goods'. And that'd Dick's fault...not Wal-Marts.

Cheaper. They sell cheaper than Dick's, that's all.

I guarantee a wal-mart has better selection, than Dicks. Why would I shop somewhere that had poor selection, and high prices? Why would anyone want to pay more for a smaller selection?
Look, maybe you've got money to burn. Maybe you've got money to throw away on Ma and Pa stores, and fruit stands, and farmer markets. I, however, don't.
Wal-Mart helps my family budget their money. We save money on groceries, on non-food items, and on recreational products.
Like I said: If you've got money to burn, good for you. Not everyone is so well off.

They have lower overhead and Dick can't compete so he's screwed. If Dick charges less on his stuff, he starves.

That's still Dick's fault. You can't blame wal-mart, because they're better.
If you had it your way, all of America would be paying ridiculously high prices for a low selection of product.

Look, if you want to blame someone for Wal-Mart being so big...blame the consumer. Blame the people that choose to shop there. It's the American people's fault Wal-Mart is so christ-almighty huge.

I do. But it's not wholly their fault. If the economy were better and the rich-poor gap smaller than maybe people wouldn't be so hard pressed for cash out of pocket. I mean, I shop at Wal-Mart but primarily it's because I can't afford to shop anywhere else owning to my limited budget. I'm willing to bet that goes for the majority.

Yes, it does.
And that means Wal-Mart is downright doing a service, for the poor and lower end people in this country.
Instead of giving them credit, people just blame them for all their problems.

On the other hand, I enjoy going to smaller stores I frequent (hobby shops, comic stores, etc) because the staff know me by name and are able to attend to my needs personally, instead of some slack-jawed teenager in a blue smock pointing vaguely to the left and muttering something about "ailse 6".

Why would I want the cashier to greet me by name?
I actually get a little tiffed, when someone in an establishment gets personal with me.
I'm here to buy something, asshole...I'm not here to be your friend.

At 7/30/05 09:00 PM, _FLAGG wrote: How is the consumer the victim?

Businesses like Wal-Mart hurt the economy, I tried to illustrate this fact, but you were apparently too busy thinking up snide remarks.

There was no rhetoric at all, in my post. I spoke nothing but truth.
Companies present, and consumers choose. Either you can prove that wrong, or you can't.
Not that I've any question on if you can, or not.

Yes. And grass is green and the sky is blue. It's totally fucking beside the point.

Don't you worry your little wealth-hating head....my job's secure.
Actually, I take that back...companies like Wal-Mart are good for blue collar. Wal-Marts attract other companies, and residential housing. And guess who builds those houses, and those businesses?

You're delusional.

At 7/30/05 09:07 PM, red_skunk wrote: Businesses like Wal-Mart hurt the economy, I tried to illustrate this fact, but you were apparently too busy thinking up snide remarks.

In 2002, Ryerson University completed the first major study on the company's impact on nearby small retailers, and found the opening of a new outlet is generally an economic boon for the whole area -- attracting other retailers and driving up sales at nearby stores. In metropolitan areas, a new Wal-Mart was generally followed by an increase of $56.8 million in local sales, and the opening of 12.9 new stores. In rural areas, the commercial boost was $74.1 million and 16.7 new stores on average. Meanwhile, economic growth in areas with Wal-Mart stores far outpaced growth in places without them. The final line of the study said it all: "It is difficult to make the case that a Wal-Mart store actually puts other retailers out of business."

At 7/30/05 09:07 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/30/05 09:00 PM, _FLAGG wrote: How is the consumer the victim?

Businesses like Wal-Mart hurt the economy, I tried to illustrate this fact, but you were apparently too busy thinking up snide remarks.

Oh, great. Red's reprimanding me for snide comments.
Isn't that the most ironic thing, ever?

I illustrated how it's the consumer who supports wal-mart.
Rebutt it, or don't.
It's up to you.

There was no rhetoric at all, in my post. I spoke nothing but truth.
Companies present, and consumers choose. Either you can prove that wrong, or you can't.
Not that I've any question on if you can, or not.

Yes. And grass is green and the sky is blue. It's totally fucking beside the point.

No, that is the point. You make out like the consumer is the 'victim'...when it's actually the consumer's choice that propels wal-mart.

Don't you worry your little wealth-hating head....my job's secure.
Actually, I take that back...companies like Wal-Mart are good for blue collar. Wal-Marts attract other companies, and residential housing. And guess who builds those houses, and those businesses?

You're delusional.

No, I'm not. Wal-Marts become consumer hubs. Homes and housing-complexes get built around Wal-Marts. Blue collar workers build those houses.
Again...if you're unable to refute my points, don't even bother posting.

My hometown, Midland, GA, right now is currently building a Wal*Mart down here... Midland is a suburban area to Columbus, and so it would be a great idea, for obvious reasons, which, you all have said before I could say them... Of course, Downtown Columbus has a lot of small novelty shops and stores, it will pull business away from them, but, not too much, it would be out of the way a little, and besides, anything is fallable, nothing is perfect, not even these giant supercenters we call Wal*Mart...

But, this reminds me of a commercial I saw where a lady graduated Harvard Law School, went back home, didn't know what to do with it, and went to work at Wal*Mart to "give back to the community"... Talk about a fricken' waste...

At 7/30/05 09:14 PM, _FLAGG wrote: I illustrated how it's the consumer who supports wal-mart.
Rebutt it, or don't.
It's up to you.
No, that is the point. You make out like the consumer is the 'victim'...when it's actually the consumer's choice that propels wal-mart.

Damien, you seem to be getting confused. Let me try and help you. No one is saying that Wal-Mart drags people to their stores and forces them to shop there. No one is disagreeing with your assertion that they go to the store willingly. There is nothing to rebutt, so stop trying to act like you won something. Yes, the consumer voluntarily shops at Wal-Mart. Yes, the jogger who gets raped in the park voluntarily ran there. Stop being thick.

No, I'm not. Wal-Marts become consumer hubs. Homes and housing-complexes get built around Wal-Marts. Blue collar workers build those houses.
Again...if you're unable to refute my points, don't even bother posting.

I don't need to refute your half-ass claims until you actually back them up with more than just squealing.

At 7/30/05 09:12 PM, FAB0L0US wrote: In 2002, Ryerson University completed the first major study on the company's impact on nearby small retailers, and found the opening of a new outlet is generally an economic boon for the whole area -- attracting other retailers and driving up sales at nearby stores. In metropolitan areas, a new Wal-Mart was generally followed by an increase of $56.8 million in local sales, and the opening of 12.9 new stores. In rural areas, the commercial boost was $74.1 million and 16.7 new stores on average. Meanwhile, economic growth in areas with Wal-Mart stores far outpaced growth in places without them. The final line of the study said it all: "It is difficult to make the case that a Wal-Mart store actually puts other retailers out of business."

A University of California report states that the fiscal benefits of retail supercenters, such as Wal-Mart Supercenters, are much more complex - and often lower - than they first appear.

The report states that the economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout Southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year.

At 7/30/05 09:05 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Wal-Mart has better selection. Wal-Mart has better prices. These two things are the keys that allow a company to 'compete'.

You and I must have very different defintions of what exactly "competition" means _FLAGG. To my mind, dealing with an opponent who can completely crush you whom you have no chance of EVER outdoing is not competition.

I guarantee a wal-mart has better selection, than Dicks. Why would I shop somewhere that had poor selection, and high prices? Why would anyone want to pay more for a smaller selection?

Better selection than a store that specializes in sporting goods? Sounds a little unlikely to me, unless of course Dick's is so small it's physically the same size as the Wal-Mart sports department, in which case I'd wonder how he ever managed to stay in business in the first place.

Like I said: If you've got money to burn, good for you. Not everyone is so well off.

I don't but people with money to burn don't generally shop at Wal-Mart on account of their preference for quality, one on one service and other snooty shit only rich people can afford.

They have lower overhead and Dick can't compete so he's screwed. If Dick charges less on his stuff, he starves.

That's still Dick's fault. You can't blame wal-mart, because they're better.

It's Dick's fault that he has no hope in hell of ever competing with Wal-Mart EVER? I reinstate my football analogy.

If you had it your way, all of America would be paying ridiculously high prices for a low selection of product.

On the contrary what I'm suggesting would provider a wider selection of product by default since more stores would exist and encourage more competition. As it is, if Wal-Mart doesn't sell it (unlikely as that is), odds are you'll have to pay more for it ANYWAY so it's a moot point.
And Wal-Mart doesn't exactly play fair when it comes to pricing either. If you're trying to get Wal-Mart to sell your product, it's at the price they tell you, and the percentage they feel like giving you because they know they've got you by the balls.

And that means Wal-Mart is downright doing a service, for the poor and lower end people in this country.
Instead of giving them credit, people just blame them for all their problems.

People who've lost their business as a result of Wal-Mart's moving in are, I would think, rightly justified in their grievences.

Why would I want the cashier to greet me by name?
I actually get a little tiffed, when someone in an establishment gets personal with me.
I'm here to buy something, asshole...I'm not here to be your friend.

I feel that way too... in Wal-Mart. That's because I know it's fake enthusiasm fuelled by company coffee. I should know, I've had to deal out my fair share of it when I was a teenager and had retail jobs in the summer. But that's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about stores where there's basically one or two people running the whole store and they basically sell three to six items of different brands. It's much more relaxed and friendly and I like that. I hate the whole "greeter" concept at Wal-Mart because it's so forced. A genuine greeting from a dedicated shopkeep is worth ten thousand plastic-y, dead-eyed smiles anyday.

I'm not trying to be rude or arrogant here, skunk, but what's the solution?

Laissez-faire may have created this problem--and while you're correct that the consumers are ultimately the victim, how are you going to convince them of that? We're talking about people that will drive extra miles to save a penny a gallon on gas. Even if we can get officials to put regulations in place on Wal*Mart and other big box stores--how are you going to convince people that, while it may be more expensive in the short run, it will be better for the economy in the long run?

And what about big box wholesalers such as Sam's Club and Costco? Not only do you have private individuals purchasing goods from these stores taking away potential business of other stores, but small independent businesses as well. Similiar regulations placed on these would not only raise expenses for private individuals, like they do for Wal*Mart, but also adding expenses to small businesses as well--causing them to raise prices, which would offset the benefits of regulating Wal*Mart in the first place.

At 7/30/05 09:32 PM, red_skunk wrote: According to the report, the entry of supercenters into the Southern California grocery business is expected to depress industry wages and benefits at an estimated impact ranging from a low of $500 million to a high of almost $1.4 billion per year, potentially affecting 250,000 grocery industry employees.

The report states that the economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout Southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year.

I gotsa question. Is those lost wages taking into account the jobs created and benefits added by a Wal Mart being there or are they only taking into account the negative impact Wal Mart has for those working for the grocery store?

And yeah, Im guessing it probably hurt other large retailers, but like the Ryerson thing said, Im not sure if its impact on smaller ones is as acute.

Im really still not sure which is correct or even how they correlate to eachother to tell the truth : /

At 7/30/05 09:32 PM, red_skunk wrote:

At 7/30/05 09:14 PM, _FLAGG wrote: No, that is the point. You make out like the consumer is the 'victim'...when it's actually the consumer's choice that propels wal-mart.

Yes, the consumer voluntarily shops at Wal-Mart. Yes, the jogger who gets raped in the park voluntarily ran there. Stop being thick.

How am I being thick, when you're the one comparing shopping at Wal-Mart to literally getting raped?
Any Mom and Pop shops, theoretically (and for Christ's sake, don't squeal about 'No, they couldn't, because Wal-Mart runs things now. I know they can't compete anymore.) could have been in the position Wal-Mart is in now. It's all up the consumer.
I feel consumers run the economy (this is your cue to insert 'Well you're just thick/republican/immoral/ignorant') in a certain way. I feel that since the only thing that propels any business is customers (and their money), that the customers have more say-so than they realize.
Sure, there are certain mandates on Companies/Corporations. There has to be. I'm not blaming The Great Depression on consumers, or anything. I'm not saying consumers perpetuate the lack of ethics in American Business, because that's not the consumer's fault...that's capitalism's fault (though that's a different topic, I suppose).
Consumers are just a single factor (although it's a large factor).

Now, we can be talking about two different things, here. We can be talking about 'How and why did Wal-mart reach the point that there's a Supercent every ten blocks?'.
Or, we're talking about 'Is Wal-Mart unfair to other businesses, due to the fact that they're so christ-fucking huge?'
Those two topics aren't always mutually exclusive.
I've been refferring to the first thing, that we may or may not be talking about.
Why is Wal-Mart number one? It's because consumers propelled them to that state. Why does Wal-Mart build so many stores? It's because they have the customer base to build that many stores.

As far as 'is wal-mart unfair?', I'd say 'in some cases'. But none of those 'in some cases' includes the situation that stands, which is Wal-Mart having a larger customer base, cheaper prices, and a higher selection of goods than any other store.

Exactly how do you think Wal-Mart is maintaining it's stranglehold? Because they've got what it takes to make consumers keep coming back.

Tell me, please, what it is exactly that you find so unfair about Wal-Mart?
All I've seen thusfar is 'Small time, hometown Ma and Pa stores can't lower their prices to compete with Wal-Mart's. Small time Mom and Pops can't offer the high selection that Wal-Mart does. For these things, Wal-Mart is unfair.'
And I can't see how that's unfair, at all. I'm asking you, nicely and civily, to explain to me why those things make Wal-Mart unfair.

No, I'm not. Wal-Marts become consumer hubs. Homes and housing-complexes get built around Wal-Marts. Blue collar workers build those houses.

I don't need to refute your half-ass claims until you actually back them up with more than just squealing.

What the fuck is there to dispute, red? I don't have a link that shows my personal experiences with blue collar work, and it's stimuli.
Is it not a fact that Wal-Marts make communities grow, for good or ill? I'm not talking economic growth, I'm talking literal size. Places of residence spring up around Wal-Marts, to allow consumers to be closer to the stores. Am I wrong on this particular point?
If places of residences are being built, someone has to build them, right? Am I wrong on that? And wouldn't it be safe to assume that the blue collar workers would be the ones to build those previously mentioned places of residence? Is that what you're disagreeing with?

I don't think there's anything to dispute, or over argue, on this particular point. New Wal-Mart stores help blue collar workers. That's what I'm asking you to refute. If you can't, then let's just move on, alright? I'm not saying that in a 'let's move on because I'm so fucking right' kind of way, either. Seriously, man. I'm just saying that if it's not a topic of dispute, why waste our time and text, on it?

At 7/30/05 09:42 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/30/05 09:05 PM, _FLAGG wrote:

You and I must have very different defintions of what exactly "competition" means _FLAGG. To my mind, dealing with an opponent who can completely crush you whom you have no chance of EVER outdoing is not competition.

My point is, if one company (the bigger one, obviously) is better equipped to defeat other companies, in America's Economy...why is that a bad thing?
Why do you think Mom and Pops can't compete? Why the fuck does everyone dig small-time, rinky-dink stores, anyway? I honestly can't understand it.
What reasons would you want to go to a shit-hole Mom and Pop? Higher prices, smaller selection. Privately run, so probably not funded in any kind of mind-blowing way. Six employees (at a max), and only a handful of wares (at most).
I fucking hate specialty shops. That's what ma and pa's are: specialty shops. That's one of the reasons they can't compete. Of course a store that sells just watches is going to make less money than a store that sells every-fucking-thing.
That's just common sense.

Better selection than a store that specializes in sporting goods? Sounds a little unlikely to me, unless of course Dick's is so small it's physically the same size as the Wal-Mart sports department, in which case I'd wonder how he ever managed to stay in business in the first place.

Alright, I worded it wrong. By 'better selection' at Wal-Mart, I meant they have everything. Instead of stopping at Dicks, the vaccum shop, the clock shop, and the grocery store on my way home from work...I can stop at Wal-Mart alone, and save money on my day's totaly purchases while I'm at it.

It's Dick's fault that he has no hope in hell of ever competing with Wal-Mart EVER? I reinstate my football analogy.

It's just logistics. It sucks for Dick, but that's how an economy works.

...I'm suggesting would provider a wider selection of product by default since more stores would exist and encourage more competition. As it is, if Wal-Mart doesn't sell it (unlikely as that is), odds are you'll have to pay more for it ANYWAY so it's a moot point.

What you just said is why there will always be some Mom and Pops. Your own point debunks the theory that Wal-Mart will send small shops 'the way of the dodo'. If there's a product that isn't sold at Wal-Mart, consumers aren't going to want it any less. They're just going to go somewhere else for it.
That's how our economy is set up: Someone will always provide everything. Whether it's a certain kind of watch, a certain kind of golf club, a certain kind of beer, or a certain kind of bong...there will always be an establishment to provide it.

People who've lost their business as a result of Wal-Mart's moving in are, I would think, rightly justified in their grievences.

If I bid on a construction job, and a bigger company gets the contract...is it right of me to hold a grudge against that big company? Or would that just be petty, spiteful, and childish?

I'm here to buy something, asshole...I'm not here to be your friend.

I feel that way too... in Wal-Mart....I'm talking about stores where there's basically one or two people running the whole store and they basically sell three to six items of different brands. It's much more relaxed and friendly and I like that.

I don't care how many people work there, or how genuine their enthusiasm is. I don't want people getting personal with me, when I'm buying things. If I go into a doughnut shop, I don't want the cashier asking me about how my day was, and honestly expecting an answer. I want a curt, quick 'How you doing?"...and then I want him to ring my fucking donut up.
And nothing more.

At 7/30/05 10:35 PM, _FLAGG wrote: My point is, if one company (the bigger one, obviously) is better equipped to defeat other companies, in America's Economy...why is that a bad thing?

It's not if all you care about is making money and don't give a shit abou t the community as a whole.

Why do you think Mom and Pops can't compete? Why the fuck does everyone dig small-time, rinky-dink stores, anyway? I honestly can't understand it.

Personal taste, atmosphere, attitude, nostalgia. It's clearly just not your cup of tea.

Venomous diatribe about Mas and Pas

Ouch dude, did you get raped by a small business owner or something? I gotta wonder where all this vitriol comes from.

Alright, I worded it wrong. By 'better selection' at Wal-Mart, I meant they have everything. Instead of stopping at Dicks, the vaccum shop, the clock shop, and the grocery store on my way home from work...I can stop at Wal-Mart alone, and save money on my day's totaly purchases while I'm at it.

That's fair. But what if you just want some sports item? Some particular item which for some reason Wal-MArt does not carry? Will you go to Dick's or go without?

It's just logistics. It sucks for Dick, but that's how an economy works.

It certainly does suck for Dick. But hey he can always sell the shop, pay off his mortgage and go try and get a minimum wage greeter job at Wal-Mart, right? Not asking anyone to be a bleeding heart here but a little fellow feeling is in order.

If I bid on a construction job, and a bigger company gets the contract...is it right of me to hold a grudge against that big company? Or would that just be petty, spiteful, and childish?

That's not the same. How much bigger is this "bigger company" likely to be? Didn't you say in an earlier post that most construction firms were local? A five state franchise at the most, right? Imagine if you were competing with an international construction firm and you could never, EVER get a bid away from them ever again. Still think it's fair play?

I don't care how many people work there, or how genuine their enthusiasm is. I don't want people getting personal with me, when I'm buying things. If I go into a doughnut shop, I don't want the cashier asking me about how my day was, and honestly expecting an answer. I want a curt, quick 'How you doing?"...and then I want him to ring my fucking donut up.

Well, that's your preference. Most of the places I mentioned DON'T get in your face about it, it's a gradual association that builds over time. I'm all for efficieny when it comes to shopping and I do hate it when someone's all up in my face with their fake interest in me like some used car salesman. But I find the opposite even more irritating. Nothing pisses me off more than a shopkeeper who seems to feel has has better things to do than conduct business with me. That's how you lose sales.

At 7/31/05 12:04 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/30/05 10:35 PM, _FLAGG wrote: My point is, if one company (the bigger one, obviously) is better equipped to defeat other companies, in America's Economy...why is that a bad thing?

It's not if all you care about is making money and don't give a shit abou t the community as a whole.

Jesus Christ! What do you people think business is about?
It's about making money, and nothing else.
I could give a fuck less about the community I live in, when our business takes a contract. We take the contract to make the money...not to improve the fucking community, and put a big smile on everyone's face.

Venomous diatribe about Mas and Pas

Ouch dude, did you get raped by a small business owner or something? I gotta wonder where all this vitriol comes from.

I just find businesses like that to be unefficient.

Alright, I worded it wrong. By 'better selection' at Wal-Mart, I meant they have everything. Instead of stopping at Dicks, the vaccum shop, the clock shop, and the grocery store on my way home from work...I can stop at Wal-Mart alone, and save money on my day's totaly purchases while I'm at it.

That's fair. But what if you just want some sports item? Some particular item which for some reason Wal-MArt does not carry? Will you go to Dick's or go without?

As I mentioned earlier, there will always be small businesses, for that very reason.

It's just logistics. It sucks for Dick, but that's how an economy works.

It certainly does suck for Dick. But hey he can always sell the shop, pay off his mortgage and go try and get a minimum wage greeter job at Wal-Mart, right? Not asking anyone to be a bleeding heart here but a little fellow feeling is in order.

Why should I hve 'feelings' for him? This is just how business works. Someone has to lose... someone has to shut down.

That's not the same. How much bigger is this "bigger company" likely to be? Didn't you say in an earlier post that most construction firms were local? A five state franchise at the most, right? Imagine if you were competing with an international construction firm and you could never, EVER get a bid away from them ever again. Still think it's fair play?

Of course it's still fair play. That company rightly holds their niche, as a bigger and better company than our company.
Again, I'm grown enough to accept how an economy works. Many people in this country seem to be viewing economics like children, with their "Waaah! It's not completely fair and just for everyone! He got more than me!!!!"

At 7/31/05 12:11 AM, _FLAGG wrote: Many people in this country seem to be viewing economics like children, with their "Waaah! It's not completely fair and just for everyone! He got more than me!!!!"

I'm sure they do. And you're quite correct, business is about making money, not about what's fair. But I think you'll find that a good many (hopefully) are like myself not so much concerned with the fairness part (although it is an issue of note) as they are more concerned with the result and more importantly, wondering what will be left for the rest of us to do when most businesses adopt the Wal-Mart model (as the have been over the last decade or so)? That whole "american dream" thing you guys have will be completely dead (it's already on life support).

At 7/31/05 12:22 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/31/05 12:11 AM, _FLAGG wrote: Many people in this country seem to be viewing economics like children, with their "Waaah! It's not completely fair and just for everyone! He got more than me!!!!"

I'm sure they do. And you're quite correct, business is about making money, not about what's fair. But I think you'll find that a good many (hopefully) are like myself not so much concerned with the fairness part (although it is an issue of note) as they are more concerned with the result and more importantly, wondering what will be left for the rest of us to do when most businesses adopt the Wal-Mart model (as the have been over the last decade or so)?

What are we to do? Ban Wal-Mart? Set a cap on how much money they make? Limit how low they can set their prices? Refuse to let them offer a little bit of everything?

What, exactly, is the solution you guys seem to support so much? Everyone goes on and on about how evil Wal-mart is...but no one offers a way to fix it.

That whole "american dream" thing you guys have will be completely dead (it's already on life support).

The American Dream has always been about capatilism. It's always been about making money.
Bleeding-hearts all-throughout history have romantacized The American Dream. People like to make it sound fair, and nice, and sweet, and equal.
And it's never been anything like that, at all.

A person shouldn't blame the system, just because they've been misperceiving what the goal was. The goal has never been 'community'. It's always been 'money'.

At 7/31/05 12:27 AM, _FLAGG wrote: What are we to do? Ban Wal-Mart? Set a cap on how much money they make? Limit how low they can set their prices? Refuse to let them offer a little bit of everything?

A minimum price isn't a bad idea. As I mentioned before, alot of producers have to undercut themselves just to have the "honour" of being deemed Wal-Mart worthy simply because Wally dictates the sales price, the percentages et al. That's completely backwards from the standard producer/wholesaler/distributor relationship but they either comply or are forced to sell to other, smaller shops, who in turn do less business because of Wal-Mart. The Producer is now just as screwed if not moreso.

What, exactly, is the solution you guys seem to support so much? Everyone goes on and on about how evil Wal-mart is...but no one offers a way to fix it.

Don't do all your business at Wal-Mart if you don't support them fully. It's pretty simple. I don't buy everything I need at Wal-Mart because they either a) don't sell it or b) their version is crap. It's not a fix per se, more like a band-aid but it'll have to do for now.

A person shouldn't blame the system, just because they've been misperceiving what the goal was. The goal has never been 'community'. It's always been 'money'.

Pretty short sighted goal, isn't it? I assume you would agree competition comes down to winners and losers? What happens when there's only one winner? Everyone else is a loser. Unfortunately, in economics there are no rematches.

At 7/31/05 01:06 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/31/05 12:27 AM, _FLAGG wrote: What are we to do? Ban Wal-Mart? Set a cap on how much money they make? Limit how low they can set their prices? Refuse to let them offer a little bit of everything?

A minimum price isn't a bad idea.

Yes, it is. It completely sweeps the legs out from under 'competition'. It'd be an unfair advantage for shit-hole Mom and Pops, to tell wal-mart they had to jack their prices up just because everyone else sucked the proverbial cock.

As I mentioned before, alot of producers have to undercut themselves just to have the "honour" of being deemed Wal-Mart worthy simply because Wally dictates the sales price, the percentages et al.

Tough. If they don't like it, let them push their wares somewhere else.

What, exactly, is the solution you guys seem to support so much? Everyone goes on and on about how evil Wal-mart is...but no one offers a way to fix it.

Don't do all your business at Wal-Mart if you don't support them fully. It's pretty simple.

Hey, look, it's what I've been saying all along.
You, as the consumer, have a choice. Do what you will, and follow your morals. That's what I do.
My morals just happen to support Wal-Mart.

A person shouldn't blame the system, just because they've been misperceiving what the goal was. The goal has never been 'community'. It's always been 'money'.

Pretty short sighted goal, isn't it? I assume you would agree competition comes down to winners and losers? What happens when there's only one winner? Everyone else is a loser.

That's tough shit. That's how capitalism plays out, sometimes.
No, it isn't nice. No, it isn't fair. No, it isn't equal. No, it ain't fun if you're a company that can't compete with the better ones.
But since it's birth, capitalism has always been like that. Anyone that tells you capitalism a hundred years ago was 'equal' obviously doesn't know anything about capitalism.

At 7/31/05 01:12 AM, _FLAGG wrote: Yes, it is. It completely sweeps the legs out from under 'competition'. It'd be an unfair advantage for shit-hole Mom and Pops, to tell wal-mart they had to jack their prices up just because everyone else sucked the proverbial cock.

I don't see how it's be less fair than a near-monopoly so overpowering you have no hope of comepeting anyway. That's why Microsoft owns a controlling interest in Apple, they at least need to appear to have competition.

Tough. If they don't like it, let them push their wares somewhere else.

And if they can't, what then? The economy isn't infinite, there's only so much money to be had. If Wal-Mart and their ilk have most of it, everyone else is fucked.

That's tough shit. That's how capitalism plays out, sometimes.
No, it isn't nice. No, it isn't fair. No, it isn't equal. No, it ain't fun if you're a company that can't compete with the better ones.
But since it's birth, capitalism has always been like that. Anyone that tells you capitalism a hundred years ago was 'equal' obviously doesn't know anything about capitalism.

I'm willing to bet is was a more level playing field though. There's always been rich and poor but not like today, not on our modern scale. At any rate, wouldn't that make capatalism a form of economic cannabalism? All the money flowing to one or two places with no hope of ever starting your own business (that isn't service oriented anyway) because it would be instantly crushed? Not that I'm preaching form the communist manifesto here (I'm pretty sure we all know how well THAT worked out) I'm just trying to look forward and see where we're headed.

At 7/31/05 02:39 AM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/31/05 01:12 AM, _FLAGG wrote: Yes, it is. It completely sweeps the legs out from under 'competition'. It'd be an unfair advantage for shit-hole Mom and Pops, to tell wal-mart they had to jack their prices up just because everyone else sucked the proverbial cock.

I don't see how it's be less fair than a near-monopoly so overpowering you have no hope of comepeting anyway. That's why Microsoft owns a controlling interest in Apple, they at least need to appear to have competition.

What you're suggesting is just another version of price-fixing. And price-fixing is illegal, and horribly immoral.

Tough. If they don't like it, let them push their wares somewhere else.

And if they can't, what then?

Then let them find another line of work.

The economy isn't infinite, there's only so much money to be had.

Of course the economy isn't infinite. Only the cheapest and biggest rise to the top. Why do you think Wal-Mart rabidly keeps their prices down?

But since it's birth, capitalism has always been like that. Anyone that tells you capitalism a hundred years ago was 'equal' obviously doesn't know anything about capitalism.

I'm willing to bet is was a more level playing field though.

Nope. Little companies still fell under the always-efficient treads of big companies.

At any rate, wouldn't that make capatalism a form of economic cannabalism?

That's what capitalism is, yes. I'm sorry if it's taken people over two hundred years to realize that...but don't blame capitalism for that. Blame the people who mispercieved c capitalism's intentions.

At 7/31/05 06:35 PM, _FLAGG wrote: What you're suggesting is just another version of price-fixing. And price-fixing is illegal, and horribly immoral.

Explain to me how it differs from maintaining such low overhead that competition is impossible? Not possesing a degree in economics, I'd like to know.

Then let them find another line of work.

And if there isn't one? I dunno, maybe I'm waxing to philosophical here but it seems to me there has to be a bottom, an absolute end point from which one cannot move forward because each option results in the same economic strangle hold. If your choices are a) sell to wally and barely survive, b) sell independantly and barely survive or c) go out of business, why the hell even bother in the first place?

Nope. Little companies still fell under the always-efficient treads of big companies.

That's what capitalism is, yes. I'm sorry if it's taken people over two hundred years to realize that...but don't blame capitalism for that. Blame the people who mispercieved c capitalism's intentions.

So wouldn't that make it a bad idea? Like I said before if there's only one or two winners, then the rest of us are all losers, the balance collapses, the money stays in one place, the whole system falls apart. I'm beginning to wonder how it's lasted this long.

At 7/31/05 09:18 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/31/05 06:35 PM, _FLAGG wrote: What you're suggesting is just another version of price-fixing. And price-fixing is illegal, and horribly immoral.

Explain to me how it differs from maintaining such low overhead that competition is impossible? Not possesing a degree in economics, I'd like to know.

Goddamn. Since when was maintaining a low overhead fucking immoral?
Every company keeps their overhead as low as possible.
That's one of the points of owning a business.

Then let them find another line of work.

And if there isn't one?

There will always be one. Be it food-service, blue collar, an office job, or any of the other thousands of professions available.
And as I said...there will always be some mom and pops...because Wal-Mart can't provide everything.

Nope. Little companies still fell under the always-efficient treads of big companies.
That's what capitalism is, yes. I'm sorry if it's taken people over two hundred years to realize that...but don't blame capitalism for that. Blame the people who mispercieved c capitalism's intentions.

So wouldn't that make it a bad idea?

Nope. Someone has to lose. Someone has to shut down. Someone has to go out of business.

I'm beginning to wonder how it's lasted this long.

The fact that is has lasted so long shows that it's an efficient system.
Everyone loves fucking capitalism, when they're the ones benefitting...but as soon as someone loses some money, or fails at a business...they cry about how unfair capitalism is.

My non-political Wal_mart complaint for the day: You can't get a three inch thick steak in the damned place!

At 7/31/05 09:29 PM, madzakk wrote: My non-political Wal_mart complaint for the day: You can't get a three inch thick steak in the damned place!

Thank you for bringing this up.
It illustrates how there will always be stores that specialize in, say, meat.
The Mom and Pop can't feasibly go away, unless wal-mart starts selling every product, good, and ware known to man.

At 7/31/05 09:23 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Goddamn. Since when was maintaining a low overhead fucking immoral?

I'm pretty sure we already established that morality has no place in business, I'm not sure why you introduced it to the topic. The issue was one of fairness. To my mind there is no difference between establishing an absolute minimum price for a product and creating a price scheme so-low that it cannot be challeneged. Both destroy competition so both are equally unfair, which in an odd way, makes them equally fair. The difference is, under the minimum price scheme, more stores exist run by more people providing more service making for a better society. You and the business world may not give a shit about that but I do and I'm not alone.

There will always be one. Be it food-service, blue collar, an office job, or any of the other thousands of professions available.

Proffessions unrelated to the one they originally performed. Ones for which they may be overqualified or not be qualified to do and for which they may not be able to afford training by which they can become qualified. Good thing there's unemployment insurance...

And as I said...there will always be some mom and pops...because Wal-Mart can't provide everything.

Yet. There are no Super Wal-Marts or Sam's Clubs in my neck of the woods, so so far all local groceries continue to function as normal. It's only a matter of time though.

Nope. Someone has to lose. Someone has to shut down. Someone has to go out of business.

Until what point though? When is it too much?

The fact that is has lasted so long shows that it's an efficient system.

Or that it's just taking longer to collapse than we would expect. Time will tell.

Everyone loves fucking capitalism, when they're the ones benefitting...but as soon as someone loses some money, or fails at a business...they cry about how unfair capitalism is.

You can't really blame them. When your house gets crushed by a giant there's little you can do BUT cry about it.

At 7/31/05 09:41 PM, capn_g wrote:

At 7/31/05 09:23 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Goddamn. Since when was maintaining a low overhead fucking immoral?

I'm pretty sure we already established that morality has no place in business, I'm not sure why you introduced it to the topic.

If it's not an immoral act, and it's not illegal...it's not wrong.
"That's not fair!" is something children say. Grown businessmen should have better sense. You know what you're getting into, when you open a business.
It's no one's fault but your own, if one of the logical consequences take place...and you don't like it.

The issue was one of fairness.

The world isn't fair. Weren't you taught this, at a young age?

To my mind there is no difference between establishing an absolute minimum price for a product and creating a price scheme so-low that it cannot be challeneged.

Price-fixing is when several companies all raise their prices, thus single handedly affecting the stock market. This hurts the consumer, because they are forced to pay higher prices, due to the conniving cooperation of several companies.
That's a far cry from one company offering very low prices. Low prices does not adversly affect the consumer. Consumers demand the lowest prices possible, and that's what they're given.

There will always be one. Be it food-service, blue collar, an office job, or any of the other thousands of professions available.

Proffessions unrelated to the one they originally performed.

Oh fucking well. Don't I wish I could easily and quickly attain my dream job, my dream home, and my dream woman...with no resistance.

And as I said...there will always be some mom and pops...because Wal-Mart can't provide everything.

Yet. There are no Super Wal-Marts or Sam's Clubs in my neck of the woods, so so far all local groceries continue to function as normal. It's only a matter of time though.

Again, until Wal-Mart sells every good known to man (which they feasibly cannot)...there will always be a niche (however small that niche may be) for specialty shops.

Nope. Someone has to lose. Someone has to shut down. Someone has to go out of business.

Until what point though? When is it too much?

The fact that is has lasted so long shows that it's an efficient system.

Or that it's just taking longer to collapse than we would expect. Time will tell.

Everyone loves fucking capitalism, when they're the ones benefitting...but as soon as someone loses some money, or fails at a business...they cry about how unfair capitalism is.

You can't really blame them. When your house gets crushed by a giant there's little you can do BUT cry about it.

At 7/31/05 09:41 PM, capn_g wrote:

Sorry...accidently cut this off from the last post.

Nope. Someone has to lose. Someone has to shut down. Someone has to go out of business.

Until what point though? When is it too much?

That point doesn't exist. Whoever can offer the lowest prices, and the biggest range of products rightfully deserves to dominate the top.

The fact that is has lasted so long shows that it's an efficient system.

Or that it's just taking longer to collapse than we would expect. Time will tell.

Then you're just speaking of some off-the-wall theory, then?

Everyone loves fucking capitalism, when they're the ones benefitting...but as soon as someone loses some money, or fails at a business...they cry about how unfair capitalism is.

You can't really blame them.

Oh, I certainly can.

When your house gets crushed by a giant there's little you can do BUT cry about it.

If someone buys a house, knowing there are giants stampeding around...it's no one's fault but their own when their house gets crushed.
If someone starts a business, knowing their piece of shit specialty shop is not what consumers want...it's no one's fault but their own when their company goes under.

At 7/30/05 10:17 PM, -Illustrious- wrote: I'm not trying to be rude or arrogant here, skunk, but what's the solution?

I don't have an adequate solution. Or at least, anything close to a realistic one.

At 7/30/05 10:31 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Any Mom and Pop shops, theoretically (and for Christ's sake, don't squeal about 'No, they couldn't, because Wal-Mart runs things now. I know they can't compete anymore.) could have been in the position Wal-Mart is in now. It's all up the consumer.

I never disagreed.

I feel consumers run the economy (this is your cue to insert 'Well you're just thick/republican/immoral/ignorant') in a certain way. I feel that since the only thing that propels any business is customers (and their money), that the customers have more say-so than they realize.

I never said anything about this.

Sure, there are certain mandates on Companies/Corporations. There has to be. I'm not blaming The Great Depression on consumers, or anything. I'm not saying consumers perpetuate the lack of ethics in American Business, because that's not the consumer's fault...that's capitalism's fault (though that's a different topic, I suppose).
Consumers are just a single factor (although it's a large factor).

Finally you start touching on what I was talking about. The lack of ethics or morals in capitalism. Which, when let loose, results in shit like Wal-Mart. I was never disagreeing that consumers buy things, which seemed to be your point.

Now, we can be talking about two different things, here. We can be talking about 'How and why did Wal-mart reach the point that there's a Supercent every ten blocks?'.

I don't believe I ever said a single thing about this. Or at least, I never disagreed with anything that anyone here said. I believe I limited myself to what I saw this topic being about, which is the consequences of big box stores.

Or, we're talking about 'Is Wal-Mart unfair to other businesses, due to the fact that they're so christ-fucking huge?'

That's closer.

Those two topics aren't always mutually exclusive.

No, they are not mutually exclusive. But they are different topics.

I've been refferring to the first thing, that we may or may not be talking about.
Why is Wal-Mart number one? It's because consumers propelled them to that state. Why does Wal-Mart build so many stores? It's because they have the customer base to build that many stores.

And. I. never. disagreed.

As far as 'is wal-mart unfair?', I'd say 'in some cases'. But none of those 'in some cases' includes the situation that stands, which is Wal-Mart having a larger customer base, cheaper prices, and a higher selection of goods than any other store.
Exactly how do you think Wal-Mart is maintaining it's stranglehold? Because they've got what it takes to make consumers keep coming back.

Oh come on, the prices you find in Wal-Mart are duplicated in many other places, including other stores, the internet, etcetera. And when it is cheaper, chances are that it's an inferior product. But yes, they have the image of being cheap. And I never said a single thing to the contrary.

Tell me, please, what it is exactly that you find so unfair about Wal-Mart?
All I've seen thusfar is 'Small time, hometown Ma and Pa stores can't lower their prices to compete with Wal-Mart's. Small time Mom and Pops can't offer the high selection that Wal-Mart does. For these things, Wal-Mart is unfair.'
And I can't see how that's unfair, at all. I'm asking you, nicely and civily, to explain to me why those things make Wal-Mart unfair.

Did I say Wal-Mart itself was "unfair"? If I did, that was a mistake. Because, IMHO, It's the system that made the fucking Wal-Marts. You haven't understood a damn thing I've said. I'm not talking exclusively about Wal-Mart - there are plenty of other companies exactly alike. I'm talking about out of hand capitalism.

What the fuck is there to dispute, red? I don't have a link that shows my personal experiences with blue collar work, and it's stimuli.

You're making way too many assumptions. I have yet to see someone move simply because a new Wal-Mart opened. I do know they lead to increased traffic congestion, and more other box stores to spring up. Can all of this contribute to urban sprawl, which may eventually result in new housing? Sure, but I personally don't think that this is a beneficial result. If you think a few building contracts made by opening these stores outweighs the other long-term effects, fine. Be my guest.

I don't care, I have never gotten anywhere with you. First off, we're not even talking about the same things. Secondly, I don't expect to ever come to any conclusion with you. It's just an exercise in frustration. I'm tired. We can talk at each other in another thread some other time.

At 7/31/05 09:23 PM, _FLAGG wrote: Goddamn. Since when was maintaining a low overhead fucking immoral?

I'm pretty sure we already established that morality has no place in business, I'm not sure why you introduced it to the topic.

If it's not an immoral act, and it's not illegal...it's not wrong.

Wal-Mart's business practices are unethical. I don't know how that fits into the whole idea of morality within business. You seem to speak of a traditional model of capitalism but, as I've already stated, Wal-Mart does not follow this model, they dictate to producers what their price points are as opposed to the normal, traditional way. I can't speak in absolutes (because there aren't any) but it "feels" wrong and that's got to mean SOMETHING, I'm just not sure what.

"That's not fair!" is something children say. Grown businessmen should have better sense. You know what you're getting into, when you open a business.

It's no one's fault but your own, if one of the logical consequences take place...and you don't like it.
The world isn't fair. Weren't you taught this, at a young age?

I only brought it up because you said this:

Yes, it is. It completely sweeps the legs out from under 'competition'. It'd be an unfair advantage for shit-hole Mom and Pops, to tell wal-mart they had to jack their prices up just because everyone else sucked the proverbial cock.

If fairness isn't an issue then Wal-Mart would have no reason to cry foul either. I never said anything about Wal-Mart increasing their prices either (although inevitably it would have to happen on some items) just setting an absolute minimum. Admittedly it's a bit wishful.

Price-fixing is when several companies all raise their prices, thus single handedly affecting the stock market. This hurts the consumer, because they are forced to pay higher prices, due to the conniving cooperation of several companies.

Like maybe the gasoline industry? Ever notice how there's no race for cheaper prices there? I wonder why...

That's a far cry from one company offering very low prices. Low prices does not adversly affect the consumer. Consumers demand the lowest prices possible, and that's what they're given.

I dunno about that, there has to be a counter balance somewhere. You can't just drop prices exponentially. As it is, Wal-Mart barely makes any money off the merchandise they sell, most of their income is land-based.