The Eighteenth Brumaire of Sam Walton

Rich Ard | September 4, 2007, 9:08am | #

...chalking up over a $1 billion in losses...

pedant points!

x,y | September 4, 2007, 10:09am | #

Change a few words here and there, joe, and you'll describe the public school system.

Finkelstein | September 4, 2007, 10:12am | #

I guess the Germans are pretty good at resisting the "buy me" mind-control rays emanating from Wal Mart ads that lefties swear make us 'Mercans unable to shop anywhere else.

Nope. Couldn't be the free market. "The people" can't be trusted to make a good choice. Nosirree.

SPD | September 4, 2007, 10:17am | #

So, Wal-Mart isn't the all-powerful entity people feared it might be. Can we stop wringing our hands now?

If you don't like Wal-Mart, shop Target. Or S-Mart. Other choices are always out there.

Randolph Carter | September 4, 2007, 10:24am | #

Wal*Mart sucks. So does Justin Timberlake. So did that "chicken noodle soup" song. None of these things discount the fact that, apparently, a lot of people like them and find value in them.

JLM | September 4, 2007, 10:26am | #

"the eager glee of the employees"

I guess these folks need to be informed by the "enlightened ones" that they are being oppressed by the man. They are too stupid to know any better......

joe | September 4, 2007, 10:28am | #

JLM,

Nope, they seemed pretty damn aware of how shitty their jobs were.

joe | September 4, 2007, 10:29am | #

Maybe you should go lecture them about how much happier they should be, JLM.

JLM | September 4, 2007, 10:32am | #

Anybody that pisses on welfare mart needs to go in there sometime and fill a grocery cart. It will cost you about 2/3 of what it would cost just about any place else (maybe even less). I'm just a dumbass, but it seems to me that Mr. Joe Average who makes just enough to support his family probably benefits greatly from this.

x,y | September 4, 2007, 10:41am | #

joe complains that the products on the endcaps are better than the ones in the middle of the aisle. But why is this a bad thing? Are they misleading their customers or putting their best foot forward?

joe | September 4, 2007, 10:44am | #

x,y,

I guess it's neither good nor bad. It just gives people a misleading impression about their overall prices.

If people are walking out feeling happy because of some imagined savings they assume they realized on the decent microwave they found in the middle of the aisle, I suppose that's a good thing.

Mr. Steven Crane | September 4, 2007, 10:46am | #

i believe one of the reasons wal-mart failed in germany was because germany doesn't really allow businesses to put things "on sale".

Episiarch | September 4, 2007, 10:48am | #

joe, what you say might have some legitimacy if it wasn't so predictable. You trot out the party line on Walmart, admit that you had never even been in one (!) until last week, and then tell me that their drivers have lousy pay and harsh schedules. How do you know this--did you work for them? What constitutes "lousy" and "harsh"? I've never met a driver who didn't complain about their schedule and pay, so I'm having a little trouble believing you.

Why is it about a store providing really, really cheap goods that drives people like you nuts? Why do you hate poor people, joe?

joe | September 4, 2007, 10:49am | #

Scott,

Why do you suppose that you need to insult people? Or rather, why do you suppose that you interpret criticism of a business as an insult towards its customers?

Is it sort of an All-Red-vs-Blue-Culture-War-All-The-Time thing?

I don't like Wal Mart. I don't like how they do business. I don't like how they treat their employees.

If you don't like that, too bad. If it really, really bothers you that people feel like that, to the point that you become angry and begin to insult people or swear, mabye you need to put a little thought into why you have such a reaction to someone having an opinion about a department store.

Taktix® | September 4, 2007, 10:51am | #

All we need is for Wal*Mart to open a few abortion clinics and we will have the...

GREATEST THREAD EVER!!!

joe | September 4, 2007, 10:56am | #

J,

Yes, they do. Wal Mart has a particularly bad record on that issue.

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 10:56am | #

Trying to say Walmart sells quality merch is like saying Two Buck Chuck was a class A wine. The truth is that Walmart sells low quality goods at prices befitting low quality goods.

The idea that Walmart is capable of performing some free market miracle by which high quality products are priced inexplicably below their true value is absurd.

Now, the truth is that a 5 year old kid doesn't deserve a quality bicycle. Kids outgrow clothes. Certain name brands are the same where ever you go. Fine. There are many fine and acceptable arguments why you would not prize quality over price. Just don't try to sell us the idea that Walmart deals in quality.

Is anybody surprised that Germany, a country that gives us some of the finest engineered products in the world, rejects this low quality approach?

Episiarch | September 4, 2007, 11:01am | #

What is it about a store that treats its employees like crap that motivates people like you to leap to the barricades? Why do you hate working people, Episiarch?

Considering that people line up to work at any Walmart that opens, your complaints about worker treatment--that I again ask how you know--seem to not bother the people, who, you know, work there.

Maybe these people don't need your all-knowing benificence, and would just like to work for Walmart, and consider it acceptable?

Randolph Carter | September 4, 2007, 11:09am | #

The value that Walmart added is in the supply chain, making sure that they're never overstocked and therefore reducing prices as much as possible.

I know 2 people who worked at Walmart. They hated it, but it's no worse than Jennifer Aniston's job in Office Space. LOOK HAPPY! They also do the overnight lock-ins, which make business sense but do really suck if you have an emergency.

I don't see why there's this "YOU MUST LOVE WALMART OR YOU HATE POOR PEOPLE AND YOU LOVE COMMUNISM" thing going around.

I don't like big box stores. I also don't like Louis Vuitton. There are a lot of personal preferences that one can have that are backed up by a bucket of facts or no facts at all. That's why they're personal preferences. I don't recall joe ever saying that Walmart should be outlawed, so I don't get where the beef is.

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 11:13am | #

Flyover Country:

Been to several superstores in Spain, but none in Germany. The question, of course, isn't whether Germany has a deep discount store. The question is whether they are able to support a multitude of Walmarts, Targets, K-marts, etc. Every country has poor people, but America, it seems, has a culture of cheapness in it's middle class, which is the target of my comment.

I completely agree with Randolph Carter. I worked hard to lift myself out of having to shop at joints like Walmart. I feel sorry for anybody who has a crappy job, whether it's at Walmart or not.

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 11:18am | #

Of course, if Aldi has lower prices than Walmart, and does Walmart's schtick better than Walmart, that would seem to suggest that Walmart can do better by its employees.

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 11:25am | #

"what you say might have some legitimacy if it wasn't so predictable."

I say the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

JW | September 4, 2007, 11:30am | #

I don't like Wal Mart all that much, not as a company, but as a place to shop. The ones in the DC area that I have been to are poorly maintained, dirty, disorganized and the shelves are usually full of holes.

I pretty much assume that the people there will quit and work elsewhere if the job sucks that much or they acquire some real transferable job skills. I don't think that Wal Mart has any special Svengali like powers over their employees that tricks them into staying.

Like stephen the g., I can afford to shop elsewhere and do. That and Targets are much closer and nicer to shop. What I don't get online, I usually get there.

What I do hate is how Giant Foods, owned by Ahold, and the UFCW 400 union chapter coluded with Monkey County, Md council members to get any store over a certain square footage that threatens their livlihood banned form the county.

So, we don't get any Super Targets Wal Marts with groceries or Wegmens here, just the status quo. You gotta love the union who looks out for the little guy, just as long he's their's. Screw the other little guy who just wants cheaper and/or better places to shop.

joe | September 4, 2007, 11:42am | #

JLM,

Like I said, information on the subject is easily available. Have you tried looking for it?

Episiarch,

Considering that people line up to work at any Walmart that opens, your complaints about worker treatment--that I again ask how you know--seem to not bother the people, who, you know, work there.

Wal Mart has, by far, the highest employee turnover rate in the retail biz. So much for your assumption. The behavior of people who have options is a better indication of revealed preference, and when Wal Mart employees have options, they jump ship at a dramatic rate.

joe | September 4, 2007, 11:47am | #

Wal Mart does have some admirable practices, though. They pioneered an urban model store which brought back department-store choice to urban neighborhoods that hadn't had it in a couple of generations. They've also done good work on their Green store model.

cls | September 4, 2007, 11:51am | #

I lived outside the US during WalMarts rise and only visited one for the first time a year or so ago. It didn’t particularly impress me but if you know precisely what you want you can save money. I bought jeans there much, much cheaper than I would pay elsewhere. So I was pleased with that. It save me lots of money. Things like pans, etc, same deal so I was happy.

I then moved to Germany and wondered about the Wal Mart you picture. I intended to visit it and never made it. I suspect the problems were several fold. One, a German friend says people were suspect when they had someone packing bags and giving out bags to carry things. You don’t get service like that in German stores -- crappy service actually and you have to pay for each bag you use or bring your own. They will sit there and do nothing while you pack your bag. They won’t help. So Germans looke suspiciously at this and protested that they didn’t want to pay extra to have someone pack bags or give them bags they didn’t ask for.

The next problem is that lots of Berliners don’t own cars and won’t travel far for much shopping. WalMart is the sort of place you go to to stock up on things expecially since the one in Berlin was quite a way out from the city center. I would have had to take at least two or three trains and still walk some to get there. That would limit what I could bring back making it not so cost effective. I figured it would take me 30 to 45 minutes to get there. Add in the return trip.

One result of lower European living standards is a lower car ownership rate. Most the people in my building travel on foot or by bicycle. So most shopping is done at tiny, cramped, expensive stores around the corner because longer distances are difficult to do with many bags of groceries. Even the large store near the train station (one short bus trip) from me I avoid. I would need to take my shopping cart with me. The bus is often crammed with people with no room for the cart meaning I may have to wait for another 15 minutes for another bus and hopefully it won’t be full.

Also most people don’t have time to travel. Shop hours required the shops to close by 7 every evening. And they couldn’t be open at all on Sundays or holidays. So if you miss the time between getting off work and closing you are screwed until the next day. That again pushes people to buy at the little local shops with the higher prices and poor selections.

Shopping in German is really a pain in the neck because this. And I think that had an impact on Wal Mart. It was too far out and the savings were worth it unless one bought enough stuff and that is difficult if you go by foot, bicycle or mass transit. Add in the German mistrust of American companies and I am not surprised they failed.

And it wasn’t Aldi as one commenter suggested. Aldi in Germany is generally food only and very small. I have one a block from my apartment and I thought it was lousy. But the one in England (where I currently am) is larger and better. But not the one’s in Germany. The same is true Lidl which is another one. They are smaller than the average American grocery store and much smaller than a WalMart -- I don’t think that would have much imnpact.

That’s my impression from living in Berlin for the last year.

JW | September 4, 2007, 11:55am | #

If joe doesn't want to shop at Wal Mart because of their reported business practices, I'm cool with that. Sounds like a very free market approach. I'm the same way with companies that abuse eminent domain to get land for their stores.

Sadly, too many people like joe want to put their preferences into the rule of law and codify their economic theories and business models at the expense of Wal Mart and their customers.

They can go suck non-organic, caged laid, non-union eggs.

joe | September 4, 2007, 12:00pm | #

SPD,

I imagine there's a little of both going on.

de stijl | September 4, 2007, 12:07pm | #

"Everybody I know that shops at Wal Mart buys the exact same stuff you can find at other stores."

The bicycles at Walmart, even the Schwinn's, are total pieces of garbage. Everybody cites to toiletpaper as if wiping one's ass alone props up the Walmart empire. Get real, folks.

The Levis at Wal*Mart (called the Signature line) are cheaper than their normal jeans because they are designed to be cheaper to produce. They are not the same jeans. They are crappier.

Ditto on stuff like lawn mowers.

SPD | September 4, 2007, 12:09pm | #

de stijl,

It's not as if people voluntarily sacrifice quality for affordability. Sometimes, you just gotta.

SPD | September 4, 2007, 12:21pm | #

de stijl,

Well, you could argue that Wal-Mart is helping smaller business by getting their products onto shelves. Because these wholesalers are willing to sell bulk to Wal-Mart at discounted rates, and Wal-Mart owns their own means of transportation, the reduced overhead translates to lower prices.

Does the quality suffer? Sure -- the smaller companies don't have the labor and technology advantages the larger ones do. But if they can move more of their existing product through a large retail chain, the increased revenue allows them to put more money into improving their product lines, which means they can attract the attention of higher-end stores.

josephdietrich | September 4, 2007, 12:23pm | #

actually tried this out last Christmas here

Heh. By this I meant having people bagging stuff for you, not the phrase as a slogan.

JLM | September 4, 2007, 12:27pm | #

SPD,

"It's not as if people voluntarily sacrifice quality for affordability. Sometimes, you just gotta."

Sometimes they do. I buy the cheapo $15 kakis at WalMart instead of the $40 dockers. I can afford the dockers, but I don't care to. The cheapos last almost as long and I don't feel bad if they accidentally get screwed up at work when I'm working around equipment. Plus this leaves me an extra $25 for fishing tackle, surfboards, beer, poker or anything else that is higher on my priority list than a slightly better pair of pants.

joe | September 4, 2007, 12:32pm | #

Wal-Mart's cheapo gear isn't made by small companies - it's ordered in massive bulk from off-shore suppliers. They are able to command such incredibly low prices from their suppliers specifically because the volume of their orders allows their suppliers to operate on very, very thin margins.

Whether you think this is a good thing or bad is up to you, but the idea that Wally World's mega-bulk purchasing allows small businesses to get their products on the shelves simply does not stand up.

Sevenmack | September 4, 2007, 12:33pm | #

Actually josephdietrich, it isn't a Berlin thing. For years, German laws basically regulated the times stores could open or close, generally closing at 8 p.m. and remaining closed on Sundays and during the holidays. Two decades ago, it was even worse, with stores being mandated to close at 6:30 during weekdays and 2 p.m. on Saturdays.

While the national law has been scrapped, state governments are in charge of setting times. And there has been criticism of the changes, especially by churches. The region in which you live has actually been progressive when it comes to shopping hours, allowing stores to remain open until 10 p.m. Berlin does allow 24-hour shopping under its new laws, but not every store has embraced that change yet.

josephdietrich | September 4, 2007, 12:41pm | #

Actually josephdietrich, it isn't a Berlin thing.

What I meant by that is that Berlin must be slow about implementing the changes you go on to mention. I apologize if you thought I was questioning your grasp of the situation.

Sevenmack | September 4, 2007, 12:47pm | #

But Josephdietrict, as far as bikes are concerned, most Wal-Mart shoppers aren't looking for a $1,500 competition-ready bike. Most people are looking for a relatively low-cost bike that can stand up to the typical wear-and-tear of casual riding. On that score, the Schwinns sold at Wal-Mart (and similar models sold at Target) are probably at as high a quality as you will get for such bikes. If you're looking for a competition-ready bike, well, you shouldn't be shopping at Wal-Mart.

Quality in many cases is relative, depending on your needs. If you are Lance Armstrong or even a collegiate biker, Wal-Mart isn't the place you would depend on for competition-ready bikes or even for a high-end bike made of some carbon-based composite material. On the other hand, most middle-class people are looking for a bike that can hold up to ordinary wear-and-tear. So Wal-Mart does provide a high-quality product for them. For you? Well, there are specialty outfits that sell the competition-ready bikes for which you are seeking.

What you seem to be doing, dietrich, is mistaking what you perceive to be quality -- based on a personal standard which cannot be transferred to another person's experience or needs because each of us is an individual -- with what the market actually says is quality based on price point. Essentially you can have both Banana Republic and Express sell shirts at the same price point and there still would be a perceivable difference in quality. Same thing if you shop at Wal-Mart and an American version of the Meijer chain. But expecting Wal-Mart to offer a Banana Republic kind of shirt is expecting way too much. They both offer quality products at their individual price points, but they can't really compare to one another.

If you are shopping for a competition-ready bike, you need to shop among retailers and manufacturers of that level of product. If you are just looking for a bike that can hold up to normal wear, then shopping at a specialty store means you're getting more than what you really need for what you are doing. It is your choice, either way, but neither one serves as an actual measure of quality.

And even the price point measure doesn't tell you much. The Banana Republic shirt I got yesterday from the outlet mall is of the same quality as the one I could have bought at the mall. But because it is an outlet mall and because it is being sold at clearance price, I paid less for the same shirt. Does that mean I'm getting a lower-quality shirt? Of course not. I'm just getting that shirt at a lower price point.

de stijl | September 4, 2007, 1:15pm | #

Sevenmack,

I'm not a Wal*Mart basher. There is a reason that they offer low prices. Magically selling $50 jeans for $22 is not part of their business model. Their genius is with supply chain management and getting all of their suppliers into that SCM model. Sometimes it ain't pretty and it has unintended consequnces for the supplier.

Levi's was a dying business. Sales were down dramatically in the late '90s early '00s. They wanted in on the number of doors and eyeballs Wal*Mart provides. They created a new jean line specifically for big box retailers - the Signature line. It is cheaper than the Red Tag Levi's and the quality is less. Almost no finish work and the amount of cotton per square foot is substantially less - 12.5 oz for the Red Tag vs. 9 oz for Signature. Wal*Mart wanted jeans at a $20-$25 price point; Levi's cheapest (and lowest quality line was above $30) so they created the new line for this reason alone.

It may end up for Levi's much like it did for Vlasic where they will end up cannibalizing their sales at their higher price points and in all their other retailers and channels.

Here are a few articles from Fastcompany with more information about Wal*Mart and Levi's (and other suppliers).

The Wal-Mart You Don't Know

The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart

At an outlet mall, you very likely did get the exact same quality shirt you would get for a lot less than you would pay at a retail store. Outlet malls exist to get rid of merch that didn't sell at the full retail price.

Wal*Mart is not an outlet store.

tarran | September 4, 2007, 1:43pm | #

When you pay $30.00 for a kid's bike that has survived 3 years worth of hard riding including two over-the-handlebars accidents almost unscathed, you can be quite happy with the deal.

The fact is that Walmart is not some magical entity. They target consumers who want to spend as little money as possible for stuff. For some goods and services they are my preferred choice. For others, I shop elsewhere.

Much of the Walmart hate, though, is the product of a concerted public relations campaign from Bernays' playbook by unions that are unhappy that Walmart didn't cave in to their demands to organize Walmart's workforce.

Walmart isn't some choir-boy; they are quite happy to use government subsidies to enhance their bottom line, or call for regulation to hinder competitors, such as their notorious campaign to increase the minimum wage.

In the end, though, they owe their power to satisfied customers choosing to spend money in their stores, something that many Walmart haters seem bent on denying. shrug

Stevo Darkly | September 4, 2007, 1:59pm | #

All we need is for Wal*Mart to open a few abortion clinics and we will have the...

GREATEST THREAD EVER!!!

Where affordable quality at the lowest possible prices are part of the customer experience.

"DON'T KILL YOUR BABY! DON'T KILL YOUR BABY!"

"Welcome to Bort*Mart!"

/bad taste

Stevo Darkly | September 4, 2007, 2:02pm | #

Anyway, all I know is, if some store has unusually good deals on better-than-average merchandise, I'd much rather they bury that stuff in the middle of the aisles, instead of putting those on the end-caps where I might stumble upon them without having to go hunt for them.

Brandybuck | September 4, 2007, 2:27pm | #

Why does the left hate Wal-Mart? The answer is so simple: common people shop at Wal-Mart!

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 3:01pm | #

Why does the left hate right ogle over Wal-Mart? The answer is so simple: common people shop at Wal-Mart is big business!

I find these generalizations to be pointless, and reflect poorly on the poster.

"And Lance Lamar: Consumer Reports may have a point, but that point is likely based on the idea that you're going to hand down the bike."

I think they're talking about grow-up bikes. As far as I know, there aren't any children's bikes over $150 or so.

de stijl | September 4, 2007, 3:13pm | #

I don't get the low quality argument. A ton of the stuff they sell is exactly the same brand and size as sold elsewhere, but considerably cheaper.

Granted. But I never said that much of their merchandise is not the exact same as sold in other retail stores. Pasta sauce is a perfect example for this category.

However, some of their merchandise is different (and intentionally cheaper and "crappier") from what you will find at other outlets with the same brand name. Jeans is a perfect example of this category.

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 3:26pm | #

toxicroach: First you say only "a ton" of Walmart stuff is the same brand and model as other stores.

Out of the millions of tons of merchandize moved each month, "a ton" isn't much. [/sarc]

You say that 90% of the items are the exact same as are available in "high quality stores" and such items retail for 40% less at Walmart.

Now, you wouldn't happen to be one of these people who makes stuff up just to win an argument, now would you? Basically, you're saying that you can buy the same exact item at Walmart, same brand, product code, batch, etc., for 40% less at Walmart.

A quick, random check (I chose MP3 players) reveals that Walmart doesn't stock Ipods, so I randomly chose to price the Creative Zen Vision M 30. Walmart was $215.95 shipped to the store (i.e., not your house) and Amazon.com was $226 shipped to your house.

(1) Where the hell do you get the 40% number? Best I can tell, Walmart offers a 4-5% discount in exchange for you driving out to Walmart and going through their store.

(2) Walmart doesn't have the iPod, which is, you know, "exactly the same brand and size as sold elsewhere."

JLM | September 4, 2007, 3:42pm | #

Lamar-

A while back I bought a little plastic globe for the transom light on my boat, because the old one deteriorated in the sunlight. Boater's World: $7, WalMart: $3; same brand and part number. This is one insignificant example, and I don't pretend to know what percentage of WalMart inventory falls into this category vs. the "cheaper quality" category, but I've stumbled into similar cases enough to know that it is not insignificant.

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 3:55pm | #

Not saying I buy it, of course. I usually find that there's a cheapo product with a deep discount, but the brands and models you find at other stores have the same prices as other stores.

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 4:10pm | #

JLM: You certainly have a point on specialty shops. It's expensive to either hire people who have some expertise or retain them long enough to develop an area of knowledge. I don't discount that people find things priced for less at Walmart. Pun not intended...

josephdietrich | September 4, 2007, 4:20pm | #

The thing I find strange about all of the "why the hate for Wal-Mart" comments is that, in fact, I don't hate Wal-Mart. I'm definitely more sympathetic to the "left" liberal viewpoint than most, but still. Even when I worked there I didn't hate it, although I would never work there again. When I lived in the US I shopped at Wal-Mart, and didn't have a problem with it at all. Just because I would never buy a bicycle or a computer there doesn't mean I have any hate (or love) for the place, and it makes me think that some people read way too much into things.

But back to Sevenmack: I'll agree with you that subjective personal preference does play a role in what people consider to be "quality" in a product. That's pretty obvious. And you seem to agree that there are objective measures of quality across the same price point. So I'll call that a consensus; it was just the "on any objective basis" in this comment that struck me as a bit overboard.

[The devil in me can't help but point out, however, that your DVD-player and computer examples of quality-equivalence are simply assertions without any evidence to back them up. Of course, I've made evidence-less assertions about bicycles, so I'll call it a wash.]

Episiarch | September 4, 2007, 4:25pm | #

Many things are cheaper at Walmart. Some things are not. And some things are way cheaper.

I go to Walmart and buy those things. I then go to other stores who have the cheapest price on the other stuff.

If I require a specific brand (like Genova for tuna), I buy that, otherwise I buy the cheapest thing they have.

This seems like the most common sense way to do things. Going or not going to a store because certain people hate them seems dumb.

Toxic | September 4, 2007, 4:46pm | #

Also, the anti-Walmart in general is about class. It's the same attitude that worries about who manufactured your clothes, the car you drive, where you shop, what you read and what music you listen to. Which is fine as far as that goes, everyone does it, but you'd also have to be pretty naive not get that part of anti-Wal-Martism is about differentiating yourself from the poor fat mullet wearing Republican stereotypes that reportedly shop there.

Mike Laursen | September 4, 2007, 5:01pm | #

The Left has a problem with Wal-Mart because they are anti-union.

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 5:10pm | #

"the anti-Walmart [meme] in general is about class."

The left supposedly hates Walmart because of it's anti-union stance, yet simultaneously hating union workers. Fascinating!!

joe | September 4, 2007, 5:43pm | #

Oh, dammit, Teh Gay! How could I forget teh gay?

Obviously, since we're talking about the Left, part of the motivation is our desire to turn people gay. Like your children, for example.

Wal Mart is a serious impediment to our efforts to turn your children gay, what with their not selling that Cheryl Crow album and all. So...there's that.

Isaac Bartram | September 4, 2007, 7:11pm | #

There's no way any kid will grow up gay shopping in a store that sells auto parts alongside clothing or groceries.

And don't forget...guns. :)

Actually several WMs in the Orlando area have stopped selling guns. Walmart responds to some odd pressures.

Mike Laursen | September 4, 2007, 7:56pm | #

See, I thought the left hated Wal Mart because of our cowardice, anti-Americanism, and admiration for Saddam Hussein.

Don't forget your godless, secular-humanism. Oh, and Al Franken.

Lamar | September 4, 2007, 9:23pm | #

"Target is not a union shop, but it seems lefties have no issue shopping there."

Suggesting that there is something peculiar about Walmart.

"And for the record, Wal-Mart offers part-time workers health insurance. I don't know many places that do that."

According to a post above, German discounters insure all of their workers, and seem to still have a significant advantage over Walmart.

joshua corning | September 4, 2007, 9:54pm | #

Cheaply-made, shoddy crap for sale; poor treatment of the workers allegedly in the name of general prosperity; carefully chosen examples of the best deals strategically located to be the most visible locations producing an inaccurate impression of the deals throughout the store being better than they actually are...sure, Karl-Marx Street works just fine.

I got my ipod at one...and I buy my nicotine patches there. The patches are cheaper then anywhere else in town...the ipod was the same price as you would pay online from Apple but without the wait.

But...I am a connoisseur of consuming things, i like buying shit and I like how the things I buy improve my life...I even like looking at things i don't buy and wondering "what if". that said the Walmart I frequent is not a fun consuming experience. Goods are disorganized the aisles are cramped and for some reason customers there do not know how to shop and i am constantly slowed down by idiots blocking the aisles or standing in front of the stuff I want to look at.

Give me a Target or Fred Myers any day.

JLM | September 4, 2007, 10:46pm | #

"Target is not a union shop, but it seems lefties have no issue shopping there."

I'm not endorsing the "lefties" comment; I'm just going to call it "whoever thinks big brother should punish WalMart" and leave it at that. But I think the answer to your question is that right now, Wally World is the popular target (no pun intended). If the John Edwards' of the world get the sheep marching to the "Target sucks" tune, that will be their new purpose in life.

Just this afternoon I saw a Pepsi commercial where they were advertising a product with extra caffeine and some of that other stuff that generally lives in "energy" drinks. Weren't we hearing just a few years ago that Mt. Dew/Coke/etc. are deliberately putting too much caffeine in their product, it's bad for kids, these evil corporations this-and-that and blaah-blaah-blaah? That talk seems to have died out. They are off that kick and on to other things. Maybe next year we can get back to demonizing the evil cola companies.

Quidam | September 5, 2007, 2:15am | #

hmmm.... Wal-Mart's core customers are poor and are trying to make every dollar count. Having shopped at Wal-Marts in the past, before I decided that I grew tired of big box stores with customers and employees that have all the glee of depression-era urbanites, I really would rather spend my money in a less depressing place.

I've found that I really don't save that much for what I buy (certainly no where near the '30%' that some above have claimed) and I'm not surrounded by depressed zombies in a dingy environment. If you look at the locations where Wal-Marts are located you'd notice that they aren't typically anywhere near the 'upscale' areas and are typically located conveniently near their customer base; low to lower-middle income.

----
http://tinyurl.com/2out8h
Chief Executive Lee Scott blamed the disappointing performance on economic pressure around the world.

"It is no secret that many customers are running out of money toward the end of the month," Scott said on a recorded conference call.

He also said strong sales of low-margin items like groceries and weak sales of higher-margin goods like clothes were hurting profit margins.

In addition, Schoewe said Wal-Mart was contending with higher levels of "shrink" -- inventory that is lost employee theft, shoplifting, errors in paperwork or vendor fraud.

"If you think about the macro environment, where customers are under pressure, there's generally a correlation between theft and macro economic pressure," Schoewe said. "Unfortunately, that's what we're seeing."
----
Low-income customers with NO income by the end of the month? Increased shoplifting and employee theft? In this 'healthy economy'? Maybe whatever the pundits are using to measure the economy and determine its health isn't reflecting an apparently anonymous component: the consumer.

If you care about the 'health' of the U.S. populace and not laissez-faire capitalism, I don't see how you can see the Wal-Mart business model (drive down costs until you suck down the rest of the market with you) as 'healthy'.

But that's the thing that no one wants to really say outloud, right? That if you are a laissez-faire capitalist [L-FC] ('people have choices, let them live with the mistakes they make') you don't really care about 'the general welfare', and that if you believe that the economy exists to serve the people and not the other way around, that you do care about the 'general welfare.'

Most of the L-FC arguments are concerned with pointing out the supposed hipocracy of 'lefties' who are 'hurting' the very people they are trying to help. What these L-FCs should be saying is how concerned they are with 'big government' cutting in to their business and keeping them from making a buck and screwing people at every possible turn (because it's typically more cost effective) because that's ALL they care about -- atleast that would be more intellectually honest.

Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

soft_guy | September 5, 2007, 3:16am | #

I personally don't like shopping at Wal-Mart. The main reason isn't because of "the way they do business" or the "eagerness of the employees" or even "how they treat their employees".

The main reason I don't LIKE shopping there is their aisles are too narrow. On those occasions when I have visited a Wal-Mart in the past ten years, I felt like the store was very crowded and I realized it was because the aisles were really narrow and it was hard to maneuver the cart. It made me feel uncomfortable to be there.

The main reason I DON'T shop there is that I do not live or work near a Wal-Mart and I DO live near a Target.

There are many things I don't like about Target and some things I do like. I do like the variety of merchandise (I like that about Wal-Mart too.) I don't like that the store is dirty. I don't like that the check out lines are always too long. I don't like the fact that the StarBucks in the Target has improperly trained baristas who don't know how to make an Americano properly (probably the easiest espresso drink to make as it is