Wallmart the Movie! please no flame war..

Post by **etimh** » Sun Oct 02, 2005 11:53 pm

Evan Kubota wrote:Is there any objective, scientific proof that Wal-Mart is what you say it is?

Of course. I can once again state the basic problems with low-pay, lack of benefits, and destruction of local community infrastructures for you but for real, in-depth, "objective" statistics we would probably have to access other resources.

Each of the books that I suggested to you rely on a variety of different methodological approaches. Two present statistical data on demographics, wages, etc. obtained from national and local government sources. One relies heavily on economic data and the last incorporates all approaches but provides a uniquely personal viewpoint by including ethnographic interviews (first-person testimonials of people living in communities devastated by Wal-Mart's arrival). All discuss these issues in the context of balancing the impertaives of the corporate world with the civil liberties and rights of working people.

Don't take my word for it--just open one of these books and you'll learn a thing or two. It probably won't change your position or "opinion," but what can it hurt?

Tim

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:43 am

monobath wrote:
Alex wrote:However if someone has taken the time to intelligently research an issue than that would have more legitimacy than either blind passion or apathy.
Of course, two people can examine (intelligently research) the same data and reach entirely different conclusions. Unless it is a matter of indisputable fact, one cannot say that one conclusion is absolutely right and another is absolutely wrong. Our unique experiences, individual perspective, and personal values all help to influence our conclusions.

Opposing viewpoints that have researched the same data is a separate issue from giving an apathetic view equal standing with a researched view.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:24 am

Alex wrote: However if someone has taken the time to intelligently research an issue than that would have more legitimacy than either blind passion or apathy.

But how would YOU be able to make the distinction, Alex? How do YOU know that they have really "intelligently" researched the issue or that the information they have looked at is really all that compelling or accurate and that they are free of all bias and prejudicial tendencies? See, that's the problem in declaring that a particular opinion has more validity than another. Research means little if the data is open to subjective interpretation, and it often is.

For instance, one could argue that flying is safer than driving because of fewer accidents per mile flown compared to driving the same distance. And it actually makes a pretty convincing argument, too, until you realize that there are more accidents per hour of flight time than driving time. So if one preferred to interpret the data based on distance traveled, then flight is safer. If one preferred to interpret the data based on time at risk, then driving is safer.

Alex wrote:Opposing viewpoints that have researched the same data is a separate issue from giving an apathetic view equal standing with a researched view.

Not really. If someone had the "blind" opinion that flight was safer, would they really be wrong? More to the point, would someone that had an "informed" opinion that flight was safer be any more right? How could they? As we have seen, data can interpreted to paint what ever kind of picture one is already biased to accept. And the flight/drive example is something that is pretty easy to research because it is based on nothing but numbers and hard data; no questions about ethics or emotion to cloud the issue, as with the "Evils of Walmart" topic. All people have a bias and bias affects the interpretation of the data on which an opinion is formed. A "more valid" opinion presumes that everyone else's bias is wrong.

Roger

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:12 am

The apathetic viewpoint issue doesn't relate to the airplane flying versus car travel because the apathetic would neither fly or drive, it would be too much trouble to do either.

Post by **monobath** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:13 am

etimh wrote: Of course. I can once again state the basic problems with low-pay, lack of benefits, and destruction of local community infrastructures for you but for real, in-depth, "objective" statistics we would probably have to access other resources.

It sounds as though you think workers have a right to a particular dollar amount of wages and benefits, and that competition among businesses is somehow wrong.

There are some things about Walmart that I think are admirable. It started out as a small five and dime in Arkansas more than 40 years ago, and now it is the world's largest retailer. It has annual sales revenues of $256 billion. It has over 5000 stores around the world. It has 1.7 million employees. It serves well over 100 million customers per week.

I'm not saying Walmart is perfect, but obviously it is doing something right. Maybe it pays employees a lower wage than some stores, but it must be offering a market wage or no one would work there. Clearly it is popular with low-income shoppers who can't afford the higher prices in other stores. They can buy things there that they couldn't otherwise afford, and they can use the money they save in other ways to improve their lives. Yes, Walmart puts other stores out of business sometimes, but that is the nature of business competition. No business has a right to existence at the expense of other businesses either. And if Walmart didn't exist, perhaps many of those 1.7 million people wouldn't have any job.

Hey, if you don't personally like Walmart, then don't shop there. Just let others make up their own minds for their own reasons. If Walmart fails, it'll be because people choose not to shop there. If it ocntinues to enjoy such remarkable success, it'll be because people do choose to shop there. Seems fair enough to me.

Post by **etimh** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:40 am

monobath wrote:It sounds as though...

Please refer to the exact same conversation you and I had months ago on this very topic. You made these same statements verbatim and I countered with my own refutations.

Then, as now, you ignore the systemic and progressive harm that Walmart inflicts when they decide to move into a community. It is a process of compounding damage that ends in fewer options for workers, lower-paying jobs without basic benefits, and a dismantling of community infrastructure and life.

If you are having trouble remembering this discussion please go back and review both my comments and your own. It will save us from having to rehash the specific points yet again.

Tim

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:45 am

Alex wrote:The apathetic viewpoint issue doesn't relate to the airplane flying versus car travel because the apathetic would neither fly or drive, it would be too much trouble to do either.

Hah! That's pretty funny and probably true. Good point. :lol:

Roger

Post by **steve hyde** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:54 am

.....oh come on you guys - I thought we already had this discussion. If you want to talk about politics - Let's talk about New Orleans and how libertarian visions of individuality are oblivious of the realities of the social fabric of the united States and offer no solutions to inequality, overcoming poverty and social injustices.

Steve

Post by **monobath** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:12 am

etimh wrote:
monobath wrote:It sounds as though...
Please refer to the exact same conversation you and I had months ago on this very topic. You made these same statements verbatim and I countered with my own refutations.

Then, as now, you ignore the systemic and progressive harm that Walmart inflicts when they decide to move into a community. It is a process of compounding damage that ends in fewer options for workers, lower-paying jobs without basic benefits, and a dismantling of community infrastructure and life.

If you are having trouble remembering this discussion please go back and review both my comments and your own. It will save us from having to rehash the specific points yet again.

Tim

I don't have trouble remembering it, Tim, I just don't agree with you now any more than I did then. Walmart inflicts no systemic harm; quite the opposite, in my opinion and evidently in the opinion of the 100 million people per week who shop there, and the 1.7 million people Walmart employs.

Dismantling of community infrastructure and life? If that were true, Walmart would have no customers and would go out of business. That doesn't appear to be happening.

What exactly is the community infrastructure that Walmart is dismantling, anyway, and what are some examples of it? How is Walmart dismantling life? 100 million people per week shop there because they get what they want for less than they could get it elsewhere. That saves them money they can put to other uses. What is wrong with that?

Post by **greenplastic79** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:20 am

The Frontline program is viewable online.

Is Wal-Mart Good for America

Post by **etimh** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 3:44 am

monobath wrote:I don't have trouble remembering it, Tim, I just don't agree with you now any more than I did then. Walmart inflicts no systemic harm; quite the opposite, in my opinion and evidently in the opinion of the 100 million people per week who shop there, and the 1.7 million people Walmart employs.

Dismantling of community infrastructure and life? If that were true, Walmart would have no customers and would go out of business. That doesn't appear to be happening.

What exactly is the community infrastructure that Walmart is dismantling, anyway, and what are some examples of it? How is Walmart dismantling life? 100 million people per week shop there because they get what they want for less than they could get it elsewhere. That saves them money they can put to other uses. What is wrong with that?

Please refer to the exact same conversation you and I had months ago on this very topic. You made these same statements verbatim and I countered with my own refutations.

Then, as now, you ignore the systemic and progressive harm that Walmart inflicts when they decide to move into a community. It is a process of compounding damage that ends in fewer options for workers, lower-paying jobs without basic benefits, and a dismantling of community infrastructure and life.

If you are having trouble remembering this discussion please go back and review both my comments and your own. It will save us from having to rehash the specific points yet again.

Tim

Post by **monobath** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:30 am

Please, what is the community infrastructure that Walmart allegedly dismantles, and how does it occur? I am surrounded by five Walmarts within a 10 to 15 minute drive in any direction, and one of them is just up the road from me. I don't see any evidence that the fabric of the community is disintegrating. In fact, the community appears to be prospering, but now you have me worried. :roll:

Post by **Evan Kubota** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:08 am

"Lower-paying jobs" than what other form of employment? Less than what a neurosurgeon makes? Definitely. Significantly less than other workers at mass retailers? I doubt it.

Target is very similar to Wal-Mart in most respects yet I read virtually no complaints from people on this forum about how they destroy the fabric of communities. And I think I read that they even offer K40 processing for around $6 through Qualex... if it costs $1 more there than at Wal-Mart, the excess capital must go directly to the workers, right?

Post by **MovieStuff** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 5:45 am

As I have said before, if a typical computer really reflected the price of a fair wage, we'd be so busy working to pay for it we wouldn't have time to post on a forum like this. But it seems there's always time to post slams against Walmart from a cheap internet computer made in a Malaysian sweat shop. If someone really was concerned about ethics in everything they spent money on, they would find little to spend money on at all. That includes the super 8 cameras produced overseas 30+ years ago and now snatched off ebay by most everyone on this forum without so much as a pause to consider their sweatshop origins. Who knew morality had an expiration date..... :roll:

Roger

Post by **monobath** » Mon Oct 03, 2005 2:37 pm

That is a very good point, Roger.

The typical concept of a sweatshop is a manufacturing facility that pays people less than what outsiders think they should be paid for the labor they supply, as well perhaps a judgement regarding the conditions under which they labor. Paying people low wages that they agree to accept in return for their labor under conditions they agree to work in isn't unethical.

Slavery is unethical because it violates the principle of self-ownership. If the laborers are being forced on pain of imprisonment or death to work in these factories, then that is a practice worthy of condemnation.