|
I guess,
Harry, the shortest and sweetest reply I can give you is that many of us are
interested in more than the cheapest price and just the bottom line in our
choices. By the
way, I think retail cannibalism refers to saturating a market area even if it
means cannibalizing customer sales from one’s own nearby store. Someone please correct me if this is
wrong. As in Wal Mart, Home Depot,
Target within 5 miles of each other. Or maybe it refers to when they close a smaller store after a
supercenter is built, and the smaller property is kept vacant, a blight on the
city tax rolls and a real estate nightmare. Maybe the
Mom & Pop shops don’t like the monopoly competition, but they are paying
local taxes at a higher rate than Wal Mart does. They use local attorneys, CPAs, advertisers, insurers, too,
and because they are locals who raise their families there, they are more
concerned about the long term health of their community. For every 1 job Wal Mart creates, it
displaces 3. Isn’t that a
negative? Since Wal Mart pays
minimum wages and no health benefits, don’t the tax payers pay the cost of their
employees using emergency rooms and hospitals in the long run? Isn’t that subsidizing them? I’ve read in
business journals that Wal Mart has expansion plans to build smaller stores in
downtowns. They may be eyeing
China, too, and are doing better in the UK than Germany, probably because of ignoring
cultural issues affecting retail. Like
Bush2, maybe Wal Mart has become it’s own worst enemy. I am sorry
to learn your daughter’s home and family may be in jeopardy in Poway. My sympathies. Hope everything will be okay soon. I lived in Scripps Ranch among all those oil-bearing eucalyptus
trees imported from Australia and know how dry it is this time of year. Regards, Karen Harry wrote: As you might expect, I have some of
disagreement with what you say. You
wrote: "other living wage issues
recently, such as the current 70,000 striking in S. California" The 70,000 striking in Southern California
can hardly be called a living wage issue. They get $17.90 an hour along with
health benefits -- I would think much more than most of the people get who go
into their stores to shop. The major issue seems to be the desire of
the stores to hire new people at a lower rate. As long as the union can
establish tenure (I think they already have it) for the veterans, this
doesn't seem to be a problem. You continued: 'due to
the monopoly pricing that Wal Mart imposes with its market saturation, or
retail "cannibalism".' This translates into supplying Southern
California consumers with goods at a 14% discount. I've never known any
supplier of goods or services to boast proudly of how much extra he is charging
his customers. I shall add "cannibilism" to
"law of the jungle" and "cut throat competition" - phrases
that are used by corporations who want to charge people more of their wages for
the same thing. Also by left wingers like Chris who don't
realize they are lap-dogs for the capitalists. You said: "grassroots resistance to the new
Robber Barons " Sounds more like shops that had a monopoly
position in town being threatened by competition. The best way to measure
"grassroots" is to watch an empty Walmart parking lot as everyone
shops in town. That doesn't happen. Instead, the "grassroots" are
walking the aisles of Walmart. When you oppose Walmart, you are opposing
the grassroots as you support a dozen or two merchants who for too long have
had a monopoly. As they were without competition, it is probable, no certain,
that they have been supplying their friends and neighbors with goods priced a
little more than they should be. In the UK, government watchdogs, I recall,
pointed out that local people will more likely be swindled than strangers in
the mom-and-pop stores. The thumb on the scale was OK for the local Mrs. Smith,
but the stranger might be an inspector, so he was likely to be treated fairly. The downtown monopoly has a lot to do with
the rent. In fact, high downtown rents are the reason why WalMart gets out of
town. I must say I love your comment: "These protestors are mom & pop,
garden variety, flag-waving, tax-paying, small business-supporting
voters." They are obviously the good guys. All they
want to do is stop people from freely shopping where they want to shop. That's all. Harry Karen wrote: This news item ties in nicely to the NOW
with Bill Moyers report on low wages at Tyson Foods and other labor issues that
Arthur alerted us to yesterday via FW.
Tyson also was raided and charged with knowingly hiring illegals, and
two executives plead guilty, fines were paid. Wal Mart figured into that story, too, like so many other
living wage issues recently, such as the current 70,000 striking in S.
California, due to the monopoly pricing that Wal Mart imposes with its market
saturation, or retail “cannibalism”.
Workers are losing living wage potential as giant retailers try to avoid
becoming Wal Mart’s next victim. It was interesting that in the Tyson strikers story,
local merchants had removed Tyson
products from their shelves in solidarity with striking neighbors, even though
Tyson has long been their largest town employer. They are also fighting a Wal
Mart store, afraid it would wipe out the last local merchants. These are not counter culture rebels
from so-called “liberal” places like Arcadia, California or the numerous others
townships who have drafted wording in their permitting processes to limit big
box retail per capita growth.
These protestors are mom & pop, garden variety, flag-waving,
tax-paying, small business-supporting voters. We are seeing a grassroots resistance to the new Robber
Barons of the 21st century, not just a simple lifestyle
movement. - KWC One
wonders if the cleaners had to line up and sing the Walmart song, or do the
Walmart salute or whatever it is that Walmart employees do. Probably not
though. They weren't really Retail Associates, or whatever staff are
called.
|
<<image001.gif>>
<<image002.gif>>
