"With Walmart however its not just the employees they like to screw around, its the small and medium businesses that are the suppliers for the company."
Walmart does not set out to screw anyone. A modern day fallacy perpetrated by statists in order to create a coorporate bogey man. "What happens is that the contracts allow for a renegotiation every year. Year 1 no problem, the supplier typically gives a reasonable price which Walmart accepts. Year 2 Walmart comes back and tells the supplier to knock 5% off the price. If not Walmart will go overseas to a Chinese supplier who can meet that price. That's not so bad so the supplier usually complies. Unfortunately Walmart then does it on year 3 and 4. Quite rapidly the supplier finds that his margin has disappeared and they either have to let the Walmart contract go (which has its own problems) or they have to go overseas themselves to meet the new price. In the end the supplier and the people working for that supplier in the US lose out." What your describing surely happens. However you're blaming Walmart for the suppliers' bad business models. The manufacturer gets addicted to the volume of sales and sucked into the trap of gross versus net. They see a large gross income and forget all about net income. Walmart does not force anyone to reduce cost. The supplier can refuse Walmart's demand and hope that Walmart will continue to be a sales outlet or the supplier can leave and sale their product somewhere else. This is exactly what Snapper lawn mowers did. It is not Walmart's job to run their suppliers. The suppliers make their own decisions and have to live with the consequences. The main legitimate complaint is that Walmart is mean. They really don't give a damn about anyone else but Walmart. They don't go out of their way to hurt people. Likewise, they don't go out of their way to help people. They look after themselves. If some of their suppliers took this approach, they might be able to make a profit and stop whining. Walmart is a target of the statists around the country for many reasons, many of them being complete BS. The main reasons are its refusal to allowed a unionized workforce and that it is profitable without government intervention. J - To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasnt that radical. It didnt break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states cant do to you. Says what the Federal government cant do to you, but doesnt say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasnt shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. - Barack O ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:328070 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
