m ike wrote:
On 6/4/05, Lewis Wolfgang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Neil Schneider wrote:
John Oliver said:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
a series of anedotes congruent with commonly held beliefs.
even the author admits to bogus research:
I don't agree that they are commonly held. Most people sine the praises
of WalMart.
However, go talk to some folks in the central valley of CA for a
somewhat different take.
A couple years ago, I threw an idler pulley just outside of
Buttonwillow, CA. Long tow required (almost 50 miles). Had quite a
while to talk to the tow truck driver.
I noticed quite a lot of cotton in the fields. I asked him about it.
It turns out that WalMart lowered the boom on Hanes. Hanes, of course,
lowered the boom on the cotton growers. However, the cotton growers
were at the bottom of the chain. It turned out that it would actually
*cost* the cotton growers more to harvest the cotton. Thus, the entire
harvest was being let rot. This, of course, then squeezed Hanes in
return while WalMart just shifted inventory space to a different product.
Needless to say, the central valley isn't so keen on WalMart, anymore.
I am actually watching the effect that WalMart has on my hometown of
Johnstown, PA, to see with my own eyes whether WalMart is good or bad
overall. Given the small size and relative insularity of the area, we
shall see whether the effect of WalMart is a net positive or negative
very clearly in short order.
Followups moved to kooler (hopefully).
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
