WalMart, the great saviour of small format filmmaking...

[reflex]

Most towns in America are so small and isolated that they wouldn't have anywhere close to the variety of goods Wal-Mart offers without one...

Actually, in my city, the sprawl is so bad that each subdivision is isolated. The local Walmart is the only thing my neighbours and I share, apart from a 7-11, pet hospital, and dry cleaners in a dingy strip mall. Blame it on the fucking car. When gas costs an arm and two testicles per gallon/litre/fozbeen, maybe city planners will see what idiots they've been.

[Evan Kubota]

I also live in a populated enough area that a similar situation exists, but most of America (in terms of area, not necessarily population) is rural. If you drive from Florida to Indianapolis you'll see what I mean - miles and miles of tiny towns with only Wal-Mart to shop. Of course, someone might raise the argument that Wal-Mart's existence is the reason why there are no other stores, but the reality is that across a large swath of America, there simply isn't the population to support a large variety of independent retailers, but a one-stop place like Wal-Mart, especially as part of a franchise, can afford to exist.

[etimh]

Please stop posting in this thread then 8)

You're not the authority here--you don't get to dictate whether I post here or not.

No one here cares that you hate Wal-Mart's corporate policies.

How do you know?--just because you have zero political consciousness doesn't mean the rest of us are culturally illiterate and politically neuter.

the points raised in this thread are garbage.

Open your closed little head just for a second and try to understand the reality of the situation that I am trying to communicate to you. Whether you, I, or anybody choose to exploit the film processing service at Walmart is really quite irrelevant. I personally consider it a flaw in the system that I gleefully take advantage of for my own benefit.

This does not erase the reality of the situation--that this corporation does real harm, to real people, in so many ways. Don't take my word for it. These facts about the damage Walmart does to communities, and the truly shitty way it treats its employees, are well-documented. You can personally choose to ignore these facts if you wish. But don't deny them outright simply because they don't fit into your priveleged world-view and sanitized politics.

Tim

[tlatosmd]

So, basically, you're so independent and counter-xyz that you support Walmart because you don't care?

I'm not an authority here either but still, I'd prefer your posts to be civil. It's not what you write about, it can be as political as you want it to be if it were up to me, but please don't lash out at members from this forum.

In others words, whenever reading your 'political' posts I imagine you yelling and savagely gesturing around, while I'd prefer you to converse like we're having tea in a library. Might seem bourgeois, I know, but I'd be less afraid of you smashing the furniture in our forum.

[etimh]

Okay, a couple of points:

First, while I am new to actually posting here, I have hung around on the board for about a year just soaking up the vibe and appreciating all of the great information and tips. Numerous times, I have watched "civility" go by the wayside over far less important issues and comments.

Second, I didn't think that I lashed out any board member personally in this thread until I was called out by name and quote. Sorry, but I will respond when questioned or challenged. And I wouldn't expect others to avoid a heated discussion or to not state their views when they disagree with me.

I do find this place fun and informative and have no desire to alienate anyone here. But frankly this is not a tea party in a library. This is the domain of public ideas and discourse and again, sorry, but politics is going to inform virtually every discussion that takes place here, be it about technology, or economics, or aesthetics.

And if a little furniture in the forum gets broken in the process, so be it. We're handy folks, we can fix it. But I'll give all you sensitive bourgeoisie a break and lay off posting for awhile. I'll just sit back and follow that other thread currently debating the fascinating K40 vs. E64 controversy. Yawn.

Tim

[tlatosmd]

This is the domain of public ideas and discourse and again, sorry, but politics is going to inform virtually every discussion that takes place here, be it about technology, or economics, or aesthetics.

Again, I don't ask you to steer clear of politics. I ask you to steer clear of terms like 'culturally illiterate' and 'closed little head' for people (on this forum, at least). An idea might be 'BS' or 'garbage' (terms I myself wouldn't use, though), but not people.

[hassan]

...I care about price. Thank God for Wal-Mart.

So when you lose your job after 20-30 years because your company decides it can be done cheaper in Mexico/Taiwan/China/etc. etc. you won't mind then?

[monobath]

Wal-Mart bashing has been a popular pastime on this and other boards and in the general media for a long time. The most strident criticisms seem to be that Wal-Mart pays workers too little and/or treats them poorly, puts small stores out of business, buys large volumes of goods at low prices overseas thus putting people in the US (or around the world) out of business, and it contributes to "consumerism" by offering too many goods that people supposedly don't need.

I don't share these ciritcisms.

Payment for services, that is, wages for employees, involves a mutually agreed upon exchange. No one is forcing anyone to work for Wal-Mart. People choose to do so because it's better for them than other choices available to them.

As for putting small stores out of business, Wal-Mart is no different than any other business. Businesses must be competitive to survive. Wal-Mart won't force any business to close it's doors. A business owner does that because his business is no longer profitable. People presented with greater choices and lower prices choose to spend their money elsewhere. And if a business owner's employees quit and go to work for Wal-Mart, it is surely not because they are seeking lower wages. No, they do it because working for Wal-Mart improves their situation.

As for the criticism that Wal-Mart buys in bulk overseas for low prices, how do you think they are able to offer low-priced goods to you? Do you really want to pay more for goods than you do already? Do you really want to subsidize the standards of living in other countries by lowering your own standards (paying more for goods and services than you need to)? Is it any benefit to emerging economies to withhold from them their means of building their economies?

As for encouraging consumerism, who is anyone to judge what items should or should not be bought by a shopper at Wal-Mart? If people have needs and desires that can be fulfilled through purchases of goods at Wal-Mart, who is to say that is bad? Do you want someone judging and approving your needs and desires?

In my opinion, Wal-Mart adds to the quality of life because it provides choices to consumers that would otherwise not be available to them. Greater choice is not a bad thing. Competition is a normal and economically healthy phenomenon that benefits consumers and the overall economy. In an ostensibly free society, people should be able to buy what they want and shop where they want without having other people decide for them what items and sellers they should be allowed to pick and choose from.

[MovieStuff]

This does not erase the reality of the situation--that this corporation does real harm, to real people, in so many ways. Don't take my word for it. These facts about the damage Walmart does to communities, and the truly shitty way it treats its employees, are well-documented. You can personally choose to ignore these facts if you wish. But don't deny them outright simply because they don't fit into your priveleged world-view and sanitized politics.

But, respectfully Tim, it is you that are missing the point here. No one is arguing with the fact that Walmart's polices are questionable or the negative effect that they have on local commerce. The point is that Walmart wasn't the first to do this. Other companies in the past did the very same thing. It is a classic business model that has been around for a long, long time. Pointing this out to you doesn't mean that I, or anyone else, approves of it. Far from it. But what you seem to not get is that the camera you buy off of ebay most likely came from a chain of stores that, long ago, operated on the very same business model as Walmart does today: Buy goods made by exploited workers in another country and use a huge chain of stores to sell these products at prices that local merchants can not compete with. I can assure you, workers in other countries had far fewer rights 40 years ago than they do today because there were no international watch-dog groups trying to look out for them.

Thus, if you really have strong feelings against buying cheap products made by "exploited workers", it doesn't make any difference how long ago that product was made or how you come by it. Just because a 40 year old camera now appears on ebay doesn't mean that there is no legacy of exploitation associated with that camera. In fact, there wouldn't BE so many cameras on ebay today if it weren't for the Walmarts of the past. So this isn't really about the Walmarts of the world but how an otherwise ethical person chooses to look the other way when a good deal suddenly appears on ebay. Again, talking about ethics is a fun hobby but practicing ethics requires a lot of resolve and more sacrifice that most of us are really willing to shoulder. Hell, I know I can't. So I buy at the local Walmart when it is convenient and I buy off of ebay when I damned well please. But I'm not going to demonize those that do the same.

Roger

[super8man]

Interesting write up on this very topic...and its timely (July 25):

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/busin ... 503_109503#

It's from a Canadian source so I am sure half of the audience here will embrace the article while the other half will reject it outright. C'est la vie.

Enjoy folks... And remember to pick your battle fronts now, eh!

Cheers,
mike

[monobath]

No one is arguing with the fact that Walmart's polices are questionable or the negative effect that they have on local commerce.

With all due respect for your position, most of which I agree with Roger, I do dispute the argument that Wal-Mart has a negative effect on local commerce. See my previous post. Consumer spending has a enormous immediate impact on local commerce and economy, including sustaining a job market.

About Wal-Mart's internal policies, I don't know. I've never worked for them and I can't claim to have knowledge. I do observe that most of the people at my nearest Wal-Mart have been there since the store opened. There doesn't appear to be a high turnover. I'd suppose they must not be being treated all that badly.

[MovieStuff]

No one is arguing with the fact that Walmart's polices are questionable or the negative effect that they have on local commerce.

With all due respect for your position, most of which I agree with Roger, I do dispute the argument that Wal-Mart has a negative effect on local commerce. See my previous post

I'm not really talking about the state of local economy but, rather, the inability for the local independent merchant to compete. It is the same thing when a Home Depot opens in the same block as the local hardware store. Some survive but, generally speaking, large stores like Walmart, Loews, Kmart, etc, drive out the smaller, independent shops. In doing so, it often changes the landscape of the community and starts to sap away the intimacy that was inherent in having lots of smaller, individual businesses side by side. If I bought a house in a nice, quiet neighbor hood filled with lots of individual shops, I would be totally pissed if they were bought out and replaced by a Walmart nearby. Whether or not the economy of the community, as a whole, is affected adversely has to be seen on a case by case basis but, asthetically, there is nothing uglier than a gigantic Walmart next door to your house. There are some things that are more important that saving a nickel on a tube of toothpaste.

Roger

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

etimh wrote:

This is little comfort for the poor working stiffs that I have to request service from everytime I walk in the place. I treat them with every bit of respect they deserve as honest working people. And fuck up every piece of shit I can as I leave the place.

Ehhh, it seems you are totally wacked and stupid man. :roll:
What the hell are you thinking about? Respect for the people who are working there?

You have no idea what respect is. Idiot. :roll:

[ccortez]

Remember, things are not always as they seem. Usually they are opposite.

A good place to start... because I'm going to agree with everyone who says that Wal-Mart isn't unusual or original in the marketplace. Rather their policies are the natural and inevitable result of what some might call global free-market capitalism.

The "opposite" part is that I think this is a bad thing, not a good one. Read on...

Big businesses are usually cheaper than small ones ;) I bet ccortez will soon jump in and add that cost and price are not the same thing.

Good to see my teachings are taking hold.

Absolutely f**king right. Other than walking straight to the film department, DO NOT SHOP at this anti-working people shithole. In fact, sabotage and damage as many goods as you can on the way out (this will help balance out our hypocrisy for even walking in the dump).

Absolutely f**king self-righteous nonsense. If you walk thru the door to drop off or pick up your film, you are supporting their business practices.

As somebody else pointed out, the scions of the Walton clan don't have to pick up those $3 shirts you litter the floor with. Brattiness is not activism. Read on...

This is silly.

Look, there seems to be this notion that Walmart has a monopoly on greed and penny pinching; as if they invented it. The fact is that Walmart is simply the latest in a long tradition of chains that worked the same way.

I agree -- the goal of a capitalistic enterprise is to maximize profit and minimize expenses. The ultimate enterprise would be one that squeezes every penny and makes unseemly margins on every sale.

But looking to the past to justify or explain ChinaMart's behavior is a bit unrealistic. 85% of what WalMart sells is made in China. That could never have been true for the Sears and Walgreens of the past b/c the infrastructure simply did not exist for this degree of global outsourcing.

In another post, you presume that the workers of the world are better-treated now b/c watchdog groups protect them. A reality check is in order, but this thread is no place to start sorting out the many and torrid details... Suffice it to say that today's global capitalism is dramatically more distributed geographically than ever before, and that the richest countries are far better positioned to take advantage of the poorest ones than ever before. A few non-profits and NGOs don't change that; and their increased numbers only points to an increased need for them, not a lesser one.

Capitalism works best when consumers and producers are located geographically close (even relatively speaking) to one another.

Again, I don't disagree that capitalism demands profit-seeking, ethics-ignoring corporate behavior. It doesn't mean WalMart is evil. It means CAPITALISM IS EVIL. :twisted:

(In case you're not paying attention, reread the previous sentence -- it's my freakin' thesis here, y'all...)

Walmart is one of the most devious unprincipled anti-union corporate entities functioning in the world today.

That much is true. But you can't blame them... they're just playing by the rules, after all.

Not only does it shut down union organizing by simply threatening to close--outright--any Walmart that even considers unionizing, but it pays its employess sub-par wages at less than full-time schedules. And, refuses to offer even the most basic health care. This is nothing less than a full-blown criminal enterprise, guys.

No sir, it's capitalism at its' best. Or rather at its' worst.

As the late, great Paul Sweezy might explain, what we are seeing are signs of a capitalist system on its' last legs. The fact that WalMart is the largest company in the world is hardly a sign of a capitalist system that is booming, thriving. Rather, it's the natural end that Marxist economists have for decades been predicting with startling accuracy.

Sadly, most of us have been too busy living our first-world lifestyle at the expense of the third world to notice.

Its like they're setting up rip-off company towns and we all just happily patronize these crooks.

Hey, don't bathe me in the blood of the workers. I send my film directly to Dwayne's! ;-)

Hey, don't get me wrong, I send my film to get developed throught them as well. In this respect I am a hypocrite, I admit.

Should have said that first; could have saved yourself a lot of self-righteously-indignant typing.

But as danpuddick did note, film processing IS a loss-leader, and is thus actually costing the corporation profits.

A couple of things wrong with this analysis...

1. You have no idea that film processing is a loss-leader at WalMart, and you won't unless you convince somebody at Dwayne's to tell you what WalMart pays them per cartridge. (HINT: that won't happen b/c WalMart puts mad pressure on their suppliers to NEVER reveal what the deal is.)

2. If film processing is a loss-leader, Walmart does it b/c they GAIN profits, not b/c it costs them profits.

3. Loss-leader strategies are yet another glaring example of the weak, end-times capitalism we are experiencing.

This is little comfort for the poor working stiffs that I have to request service from everytime I walk in the place. I treat them with every bit of respect they deserve as honest working people. And fuck up every piece of shit I can as I leave the place.

I'll let other people continue to point out how stupid and condradictory that is.

Seriously, save the BS politicking for a political forum. No one here cares that you hate Wal-Mart's corporate policies.

Politics doesn't exist in a vacuum, and isn't best discussed in a "political forum". Spending money is a political act. Just because you're uncomfortable with that doesn't make it untrue.

And Roger has a valid point - how do you expect to find cameras and other gear for a fraction of the original sale price on eBay, then slam retailers like Wal-Mart that focus on selling cheap goods? If you hate mass culture and mass manufacturing, stop using mass-produced cameras.

Was my Nizo 801 or my Bauer 715 or my Bolex H-16 produced by Chinese peasant school-age children? Doubtful. Was the $14 pair of jeans available at ChinaMart? Likely.

BTW, re: Wal-Mart and communities: the points raised in this thread are garbage. Most towns in America are so small and isolated that they wouldn't have anywhere close to the variety of goods Wal-Mart offers without one. The notion that somehow every economy has to be big enough for a specialized 'mom-and-pop' (read: higher prices, less selection, variable service) store for each category of item is beyond absurd.

But what does "variety" or "selection" really mean? Who needs 20 different brands of 10-lb. boxes of washing powder that all do the same thing? Again, go read your Sweezy and see what product differentiation based on branding and tiny slivers of price percentages says about the future of capitalism. Or don't. It's up to you.

A strong capitalistic system grows companies that offer real innovation. Could Henry Ford have made bigger profit margins by paying his workers shit? Probably, they didn't have a bunch of choices about where to work. But he thought a better company could be built by workers who could actually afford to purchase the product they were manufacturing, so he supported higher wages for his workers. In today's capitalism, the stock price would likely nose-dive if a CEO made a similar decision. In contrast, watch the stock price of a company who "trims fat" by laying off thousands of workers...

Again, talking about ethics is a fun hobby but practicing ethics requires a lot of resolve and more sacrifice that most of us are really willing to shoulder.

Disingenuous, Roger. Ethics is about each small choice one makes, and it's not binary. One can behave more or less ethically. It's not enough to say, "Ah well, it's all too much, everything has it's ethical cost so I'll choose not to consider any ethical cost at all."

To wit: I would never pretend that my decisions are by-and-large ethical, or that the net-net of my actions over time is ethically acceptible. But that doesn't mean I have to shop at Walmart and support their anti-worker, anti-union policies.

I didn't go to the MOMA for years when I lived in NYC b/c the janitorial workers were on strike and I wouldn't cross their line. Does that make me ethically superior? In no way, shape or form. But was that a decision I made based on my best evaluation of the ethics involved? Absolutely.

Hell, I know I can't. So I buy at the local Walmart when it is convenient and I buy off of ebay when I damned well please. But I'm not going to demonize those that do the same.

Good. Avoiding hypocrisy truly is the first step in the long journey of not being an asshole.

[etimh]

Ehhh, it seems you are totally wacked and stupid man. :roll:
What the hell are you thinking about? Respect for the people who are working there?

You have no idea what respect is. Idiot. :roll:

Yes, civility at its best.


To all others who took the time to address my thoughts with patience and intelligence, thanks. I appreciate the perspectives.

Tim