|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 23 2014 03:44 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 03:38 oneofthem wrote:
a flood is more efficient at putting water across land but that doesn't mean you prefer a flood over a field of rice.
mmkay That's a pretty bad definition of more efficient.
point is, the economy is an ecosystem and you need enough circulation to fuel the whole thing. walmart is like burning down the rainforest to plant corn. it does not invest in the community at all
|
On January 23 2014 03:46 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 03:38 farvacola wrote:Considering that Wal-Mart employees are the single largest employer specific group recipient of Medicaid and food stamps, I'd say you're wrong.
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.
Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.
Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers Relevance? Lots of small retailers with employees on benefits is better than a big retailer with employees on benefits because... The thing is that small retailers are struggling to stay afloat while Walmart swims in a see of money.
So? Owners of small retailers don't have some special right to profit.
|
On January 23 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 03:46 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 03:38 farvacola wrote:Considering that Wal-Mart employees are the single largest employer specific group recipient of Medicaid and food stamps, I'd say you're wrong.
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.
Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.
Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers Relevance? Lots of small retailers with employees on benefits is better than a big retailer with employees on benefits because... The thing is that small retailers are struggling to stay afloat while Walmart swims in a see of money. So? Owners of small retailers don't have some special right to profit.
My point is that decent human beings have to close their businesses because they can't compete with assholes who own billions of dollars but don't pay their employees enough to support themselves or their families.
If you don't think that's a little unfair and unreasonable I don't know what's wrong with you.
|
Walmart’s entry into a new market has a strongly negative effect on existing retailers.[4] Supermarkets and discount variety stores are the most adversely affected, suffering sales declines of 10 to 40% after Walmart opens.[5] The value of Walmart to the economy will likely be less than the value of the jobs and businesses it replaces. A study estimating the future impact of Walmart on the grocery industry in California found that “the full economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year.”[6] A study of Chicago in 2009 shows that businesses within one mile of a Walmart Supercenter have a 25% chance of shuttering in the first year, and a 40% chance of shuttering by the second year, when compared with stores farther than one mile from the Supercenter.[7] Local businesses keep more money in the community. A 2009 study of the differential impact of locally-owned businesses and big-box stores in New Orleans shows that while big-box stores only recirculate 16% of revenues into the community, locally-owned businesses recirculate twice as much.[8] A 2011 study of the St. Louis region found that as public tax dollars were diverted to big box retailers and shopping malls – more than $5.8 billion over 20 years – small business suffered. Over 600 small businesses (10 employees or less) closed during this time while retail sales have not increased in years.[9] A 2009 study from the Center for Economic Studies at the U.S. Census Bureau found that the entry and growth of big-box stores has a strong negative impact on the growth and survival of nearby independent and small-chain stores selling the same types of goods.[10] [5] Kenneth E. Stone, Georgeanne Artz, and Albery Myles. “The Economic Impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters on Existing Businesses in Mississippi.” Mississippi University Extension Service. 2002. http://Wal-Mart.3cdn.net/6e5ad841f247a909d7_bcm6b9fdo.pdf ; O. Capps, and J.M, Griffin. “Effect of a Mass Merchandiser on Traditional Food Retailers.” Journal of Food Distribution 29 (February 1998): 1-7; Vishal P. Singh, Karsten T. Hansen, and Robert C. Blattberg. “Impact of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on a Traditional Supermarket: An Empirical Investigation.” February 2004. http://chicagobooth.edu/research/workshops/marketing/archive/WorkshopPapers/hansen.pdf; Kusum L. Ailawadi, Jie Zhang, Aradhna Krishna, and Michael W. Kruger. “When Wal-Mart Enters: How Incumbent Retailers React and How This Affects Their Sales Outcomes.” Journal of Marketing Research 47.4 (August 2010). [6] Martin Boarnet, and Randall Crane. “The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances.” Orange County Business Council. September 2009. [7] Julie Davis, David Merriman, Lucia Samayoa, Brian Flanagan,Ron Baiman, and Joe Persky. “The Impact of an Urban Wal-Mart Store on Area Businesses: An Evaluation of One Chicago Neighborhood’s Experience”, Center for Urban Research and Learning, Loyola University. December 2009, pg 17. [8] Thinking Outside the Box: A report on independent merchants and the New Orleans economy, September, 2009. The Urban Conservancy in partnership with Civic Economics. [9] “An Assessment of the Effectiveness and Fiscal Impacts of the Use of Local Development Incentives in the St. Louis Region” East-West Gateway Council of Governments; Jan 2011 [10] “Mom-and-Pop Meet Big Box: Complements or Substitutes?” U.S. Census Bureau – Center for Economic Studies. 9/1/09.
Counties and parishes with a greater concentration of small, locally-owned businesses have healthier populations — with lower rates of mortality, obesity and diabetes — than do those that rely on large companies with “absentee” owners, according to a national study by sociologists at LSU and Baylor University.
“What stands out about this research is that we often think of the economic benefits and job growth that small business generates, but we don’t think of the social benefits to small communities,” said Troy C. Blanchard, Ph.D., lead author and associate professor of sociology at LSU. “This study highlights not only the economic benefits of small business, but its contributions to health and well-being.”
The study of 3,060 counties and parishes in the contiguous United States, published online in the Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society and forthcoming in its March print issue, brings new evidence to a body of research literature and a debate among sociologists, who traditionally have advanced two competing hypotheses about how small business impacts public health.
Some sociologists argue that small businesses — unlike chain retail “big box” stores and large manufacturing plants — have a greater investment in the community and thus have more at stake when it comes to employee health. The LSU and Baylor researchers, who analyzed national population, health, business and housing data, found that the greater the proportion of small businesses, the healthier the population.
“It appears there is an entrepreneurial culture that promotes public health through a can-do climate, a practical problem-solving approach that takes control of its own community,” said co-author Charles M. Tolbert, Ph.D., chair of the sociology department at Baylor. “The alternative is the attitude that ‘Things are out of our control.’”
Communities may become dependent on outside investment to solve problems, the researchers wrote.
Their findings are a departure from the traditional conclusion that “bigger is better.”
U.S. Counties with Thriving Small Businesses Have Healthier Residents
In this study, Civic Economics analyzed data from fifteen independent retailers and seven independent restaurants, all located in Salt Lake City, and compared their local economic impact with four national retail chains (Barnes & Noble, Home Depot, Office Max, and Target) and three national restaurant chains (Darden, McDonald’s, and P.F. Chang’s). The study found that the local retailers return a total of 52 percent of their revenue to the local economy, compared to just 14 percent for the national chain retailers. Similarly, the local restaurants recirculate an average of 79 percent of their revenue locally, compared to 30 percent for the chain eateries. What accounts for the difference? In a handy graphic, Civic Economics shows the breakdown. Independent businesses spend more on local labor, goods procured locally for resale, and services from local providers. This means a much larger share of the money you spend at a locally owned store stays in your local economy, supporting a variety of other businesses and jobs.
Key Studies on Big-Box Retail & Independent Business
Sometimes, and I know this is utter heresy, it's better if capital can't move quite so far or as easily.
|
On January 23 2014 03:54 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 03:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 03:46 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 03:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 03:38 farvacola wrote:Considering that Wal-Mart employees are the single largest employer specific group recipient of Medicaid and food stamps, I'd say you're wrong.
At the end of 2012, there were 3,216 Wal-Mart employees who were enrolled in Wisconsin public health care programs, more than any other employer. Add in the dependents of Wal-Mart workers and the total jumps up to 9,207.
Factoring in what taxpayers contribute for public programs, the report estimated that one Wal-Mart supercenter employing 300 workers could cost taxpayers at least $904,000 annually.
Wal-Mart's low wages cost taxpayers Relevance? Lots of small retailers with employees on benefits is better than a big retailer with employees on benefits because... The thing is that small retailers are struggling to stay afloat while Walmart swims in a see of money. So? Owners of small retailers don't have some special right to profit. My point is that decent human beings have to close their businesses because they can't compete with assholes who own billions of dollars but don't pay their employees enough to support themselves or their families. If you don't think that's a little unfair and unreasonable I don't know what's wrong with you.
You're advocating public policy that's counter productive to your goal. You should be advocating greater redistribution rather than encouraging small retailers to extract rent from consumers.
|
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance).
|
On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance).
Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people.
The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring.
|
On January 23 2014 04:06 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +Walmart’s entry into a new market has a strongly negative effect on existing retailers.[4] Supermarkets and discount variety stores are the most adversely affected, suffering sales declines of 10 to 40% after Walmart opens.[5] The value of Walmart to the economy will likely be less than the value of the jobs and businesses it replaces. A study estimating the future impact of Walmart on the grocery industry in California found that “the full economic impact of those lost wages and benefits throughout southern California could approach $2.8 billion per year.”[6] A study of Chicago in 2009 shows that businesses within one mile of a Walmart Supercenter have a 25% chance of shuttering in the first year, and a 40% chance of shuttering by the second year, when compared with stores farther than one mile from the Supercenter.[7] Local businesses keep more money in the community. A 2009 study of the differential impact of locally-owned businesses and big-box stores in New Orleans shows that while big-box stores only recirculate 16% of revenues into the community, locally-owned businesses recirculate twice as much.[8] A 2011 study of the St. Louis region found that as public tax dollars were diverted to big box retailers and shopping malls – more than $5.8 billion over 20 years – small business suffered. Over 600 small businesses (10 employees or less) closed during this time while retail sales have not increased in years.[9] A 2009 study from the Center for Economic Studies at the U.S. Census Bureau found that the entry and growth of big-box stores has a strong negative impact on the growth and survival of nearby independent and small-chain stores selling the same types of goods.[10] [5] Kenneth E. Stone, Georgeanne Artz, and Albery Myles. “The Economic Impact of Wal-Mart Supercenters on Existing Businesses in Mississippi.” Mississippi University Extension Service. 2002. http://Wal-Mart.3cdn.net/6e5ad841f247a909d7_bcm6b9fdo.pdf ; O. Capps, and J.M, Griffin. “Effect of a Mass Merchandiser on Traditional Food Retailers.” Journal of Food Distribution 29 (February 1998): 1-7; Vishal P. Singh, Karsten T. Hansen, and Robert C. Blattberg. “Impact of a Wal-Mart Supercenter on a Traditional Supermarket: An Empirical Investigation.” February 2004. http://chicagobooth.edu/research/workshops/marketing/archive/WorkshopPapers/hansen.pdf; Kusum L. Ailawadi, Jie Zhang, Aradhna Krishna, and Michael W. Kruger. “When Wal-Mart Enters: How Incumbent Retailers React and How This Affects Their Sales Outcomes.” Journal of Marketing Research 47.4 (August 2010). [6] Martin Boarnet, and Randall Crane. “The Impact of Big Box Grocers on Southern California: Jobs, Wages, and Municipal Finances.” Orange County Business Council. September 2009. [7] Julie Davis, David Merriman, Lucia Samayoa, Brian Flanagan,Ron Baiman, and Joe Persky. “The Impact of an Urban Wal-Mart Store on Area Businesses: An Evaluation of One Chicago Neighborhood’s Experience”, Center for Urban Research and Learning, Loyola University. December 2009, pg 17. [8] Thinking Outside the Box: A report on independent merchants and the New Orleans economy, September, 2009. The Urban Conservancy in partnership with Civic Economics. [9] “An Assessment of the Effectiveness and Fiscal Impacts of the Use of Local Development Incentives in the St. Louis Region” East-West Gateway Council of Governments; Jan 2011 [10] “Mom-and-Pop Meet Big Box: Complements or Substitutes?” U.S. Census Bureau – Center for Economic Studies. 9/1/09. Show nested quote +
Counties and parishes with a greater concentration of small, locally-owned businesses have healthier populations — with lower rates of mortality, obesity and diabetes — than do those that rely on large companies with “absentee” owners, according to a national study by sociologists at LSU and Baylor University.
“What stands out about this research is that we often think of the economic benefits and job growth that small business generates, but we don’t think of the social benefits to small communities,” said Troy C. Blanchard, Ph.D., lead author and associate professor of sociology at LSU. “This study highlights not only the economic benefits of small business, but its contributions to health and well-being.”
The study of 3,060 counties and parishes in the contiguous United States, published online in the Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society and forthcoming in its March print issue, brings new evidence to a body of research literature and a debate among sociologists, who traditionally have advanced two competing hypotheses about how small business impacts public health.
Some sociologists argue that small businesses — unlike chain retail “big box” stores and large manufacturing plants — have a greater investment in the community and thus have more at stake when it comes to employee health. The LSU and Baylor researchers, who analyzed national population, health, business and housing data, found that the greater the proportion of small businesses, the healthier the population.
“It appears there is an entrepreneurial culture that promotes public health through a can-do climate, a practical problem-solving approach that takes control of its own community,” said co-author Charles M. Tolbert, Ph.D., chair of the sociology department at Baylor. “The alternative is the attitude that ‘Things are out of our control.’”
Communities may become dependent on outside investment to solve problems, the researchers wrote.
Their findings are a departure from the traditional conclusion that “bigger is better.”
U.S. Counties with Thriving Small Businesses Have Healthier ResidentsShow nested quote +In this study, Civic Economics analyzed data from fifteen independent retailers and seven independent restaurants, all located in Salt Lake City, and compared their local economic impact with four national retail chains (Barnes & Noble, Home Depot, Office Max, and Target) and three national restaurant chains (Darden, McDonald’s, and P.F. Chang’s). The study found that the local retailers return a total of 52 percent of their revenue to the local economy, compared to just 14 percent for the national chain retailers. Similarly, the local restaurants recirculate an average of 79 percent of their revenue locally, compared to 30 percent for the chain eateries. What accounts for the difference? In a handy graphic, Civic Economics shows the breakdown. Independent businesses spend more on local labor, goods procured locally for resale, and services from local providers. This means a much larger share of the money you spend at a locally owned store stays in your local economy, supporting a variety of other businesses and jobs. Key Studies on Big-Box Retail & Independent BusinessSometimes, and I know this is utter heresy, it's better if capital can't move quite so far or as easily.
The horse and buggy industry has existed for thousands of years and shouldn't go down the drain it would be a crime to all those hard horse and buggy industry workers, your neighbors and friends.
Preserving expensive and outdated industries doesn't help their workers and the petty burgeois (some not so petty) who own them it just keeps them standing still longer and your area gets left farther behind. The five years of lukewarm progressivism hasn't delivered the direction or much of anything needed for the new and better jobs that have always come along to do enough of that.
And I could just as well blame television. Those greasy jerks at Marconi. The Italians ruined America, those racist greasy guys run by Daniel Day-Lewis were right!
Why don't you leave capital alone and use some of that 3.6 trillion budget to pay people something every month if they're in normal BMI. Or give them a free something. Make a reality show, people can win no more taxes for life if they meet some crazy health standards and win a contest. America would be the healthiest nation on the planet faster than it takes my diabetic ass to eat a cake.
|
On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring.
How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor does it explain how the Walton familly has become the richest familly in the US.
It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for economic growth. Just like banks basically lol.
|
Some 6.3 million people have enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program since Oct. 1, when HealthCare.gov and its state counterparts went live, according to a new report from the Obama administration. The report covers Medicaid enrollments through the end of December.
That figures includes people who are newly eligible for Medicaid because their state expanded the program under the health care reform law, people who were already eligible but not enrolled and, in some states, people who were renewing their eligibility.
Thirteen states included renewals in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services report, though their exact number out of the 6.3 million could not be determined.
Source
|
On January 23 2014 03:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The only time when I've seen that remotely happen is in small towns where the small retailers were terrible.
What does this mean? Walmart basically wipes out every other retailer in the lower end market. The only retailers that coexist (other than thrift stores) are those that are targeting "higher" (NOT "high") income brackets. Most small towns don't have a sufficient population of people in those "higher" brackets to support such a retail store, much less many of them.
|
On January 23 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor the fact that the Walton familly is the richest familly in the US. It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for the community. Just like banks basically lol.
Wal-Mart has a highly innovative and technologically advanced supply chain. If you aren't familiar with the company, you probably shouldn't be stating why they're profitable!
|
On January 23 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor the fact that the Walton familly is the richest familly in the US. It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for the community. Just like banks basically lol. Wal-Mart has a highly innovative and technologically advanced supply chain. If you aren't familiar with the company, you probably shouldn't be stating why they're profitable!
Supply chain. Innovation is a little more than that you know, like research in health, or technologies, etc. I guess making sure you have your product quickly and in the most efficient manner can be seen as an improvement in a society that has completly lost any optimism towards "progress".
Just like giving you the opportunity to buy 110 % of your revenu, like american banks did prior to 2007, can be seen as progress... I guess.
|
On January 23 2014 07:11 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 03:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The only time when I've seen that remotely happen is in small towns where the small retailers were terrible. What does this mean? Walmart basically wipes out every other retailer in the lower end market. The only retailers that coexist (other than thrift stores) are those that are targeting "higher" (NOT "high") income brackets. Most small towns don't have a sufficient population of people in those "higher" brackets to support such a retail store, much less many of them.
That's a bit more accurate than what you said before.
|
On January 23 2014 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor the fact that the Walton familly is the richest familly in the US. It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for the community. Just like banks basically lol. Wal-Mart has a highly innovative and technologically advanced supply chain. If you aren't familiar with the company, you probably shouldn't be stating why they're profitable! Supply chain. Innovation is a little more than that you know, like research in health, or technologies, etc. I guess making sure you have your product quickly and in the most efficient manner can be seen as an improvement in a society that has completly lost any optimism towards "progress". Just like giving you the opportunity to buy 110 % of your revenu, like american banks did prior to 2007, can be seen as progress... I guess.
Lol, what?
|
On January 23 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor the fact that the Walton familly is the richest familly in the US. It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for the community. Just like banks basically lol. Wal-Mart has a highly innovative and technologically advanced supply chain. If you aren't familiar with the company, you probably shouldn't be stating why they're profitable! Supply chain. Innovation is a little more than that you know, like research in health, or technologies, etc. I guess making sure you have your product quickly and in the most efficient manner can be seen as an improvement in a society that has completly lost any optimism towards "progress". Just like giving you the opportunity to buy 110 % of your revenu, like american banks did prior to 2007, can be seen as progress... I guess. Lol, what?
Don't you understand there is a difference of value in finding out a new way to product, a new material, or a new product by opposition to a simple improvement in the efficiency of the supply chain ? Is it too hard for you to understand that a company like Wal-Mart will never invest in research like some producers do ?
|
On January 23 2014 07:33 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor the fact that the Walton familly is the richest familly in the US. It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for the community. Just like banks basically lol. Wal-Mart has a highly innovative and technologically advanced supply chain. If you aren't familiar with the company, you probably shouldn't be stating why they're profitable! Supply chain. Innovation is a little more than that you know, like research in health, or technologies, etc. I guess making sure you have your product quickly and in the most efficient manner can be seen as an improvement in a society that has completly lost any optimism towards "progress". Just like giving you the opportunity to buy 110 % of your revenu, like american banks did prior to 2007, can be seen as progress... I guess. Lol, what? Don't you understand there is a difference of value in finding out a new way to product, a new material, or a new product by opposition to a simple improvement in the efficiency of the supply chain ? Is it too hard for you to understand that a company like Wal-Mart will never invest in research like some producers do ?
no... no no no... the "supply chains are too plebeian for me" line of argument is just... ignorant.
Edit: what are you going to claim next? That lean manufacturing isn't a "real" innovation?
|
On January 23 2014 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 07:33 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor the fact that the Walton familly is the richest familly in the US. It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for the community. Just like banks basically lol. Wal-Mart has a highly innovative and technologically advanced supply chain. If you aren't familiar with the company, you probably shouldn't be stating why they're profitable! Supply chain. Innovation is a little more than that you know, like research in health, or technologies, etc. I guess making sure you have your product quickly and in the most efficient manner can be seen as an improvement in a society that has completly lost any optimism towards "progress". Just like giving you the opportunity to buy 110 % of your revenu, like american banks did prior to 2007, can be seen as progress... I guess. Lol, what? Don't you understand there is a difference of value in finding out a new way to product, a new material, or a new product by opposition to a simple improvement in the efficiency of the supply chain ? Is it too hard for you to understand that a company like Wal-Mart will never invest in research like some producers do ? no... no no no... the "supply chains are too plebeian for me" line of argument is just... ignorant. Edit: what are you going to claim next? That lean manufacturing isn't a "real" innovation?
I guess I'm ignorant then. I guess it's my ignorance that prevents me from witnessing the net increase in economic growth that Walmart great supply innovations permitted, or the real improvement of americans average conditions of living.
Please man, you can do better.
Lean manufacturing permits firms to reallocate their ressources. It is not the case for Walmart : what they gain in productivity just becomes more profit for the Walton familly - a money that does not trickle down. I guess young people like you will do everything they can to continue believe in their tales. You see no differences in having to invest in research for more energy efficient engine - like toyota have to right now - and thus invest every available ressource into that, and just investing in the supply chain with no outlet for excess ressources ?
|
On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring.
Entry level retail work doesn't pay much, that is very true, but where is the opportunity to make a decent wage in the Wal-Mart pay structure? At what commitment/experience level, or managerial level, is one able to move to a comfortable middle-class lifestyle while working at Wal-Mart? Better yet, at what level are they able to come off of government assistance? The "efficiency" they command over the smaller retailers that runs those out of business certainly can afford to provide a middle class life-style to more people than a disjointed small retailer system, right?
|
On January 23 2014 07:56 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:33 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor the fact that the Walton familly is the richest familly in the US. It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for the community. Just like banks basically lol. Wal-Mart has a highly innovative and technologically advanced supply chain. If you aren't familiar with the company, you probably shouldn't be stating why they're profitable! Supply chain. Innovation is a little more than that you know, like research in health, or technologies, etc. I guess making sure you have your product quickly and in the most efficient manner can be seen as an improvement in a society that has completly lost any optimism towards "progress". Just like giving you the opportunity to buy 110 % of your revenu, like american banks did prior to 2007, can be seen as progress... I guess. Lol, what? Don't you understand there is a difference of value in finding out a new way to product, a new material, or a new product by opposition to a simple improvement in the efficiency of the supply chain ? Is it too hard for you to understand that a company like Wal-Mart will never invest in research like some producers do ? no... no no no... the "supply chains are too plebeian for me" line of argument is just... ignorant. Edit: what are you going to claim next? That lean manufacturing isn't a "real" innovation? I guess I'm ignorant then. I guess it's my ignorance that prevents me from witnessing the net increase in economic growth that Walmart great supply innovations permitted, or the real improvement of americans average conditions of living. Please man, you can do better. Lean manufacturing permits firms to reallocate their ressources. It is not the case for Walmart : what they gain in productivity just becomes more profit for the Walton familly - a money that does not trickle down. I guess young people like you will do everything they can to continue believe in their tales. You see no differences in having to invest in research for more energy efficient engine - like toyota have to right now - and thus invest every available ressource into that, and just investing in the supply chain with no outlet for excess ressources ?
You probably shouldn't write so much about companies you don't know. Just sayin' 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
