Why Wal-Mart is good

[redqueen]

http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/business/article.jsp?content=20050725_109503_109503

We've heard all the horror stories about the retail giant. They're just not true.

--------

Wow.

Just, wow.

[WCGreen]

1. As A Clevelander, I have mixed feelings about this

particular development...

First, the Steel mills are not coming back. Period. That part of Cleveland is now destined to history....

Second, there is no real retail center left in the area....

Third, they have been trying to redevelop three key areas in Cleveland and all three area, Tremont, the Warehouse District and Ohio City, have all sputtered since there is no place to shop for suburban type products...

Fourth, there is only one Lumber Yard any where near that area...

Fifth, there are hundreds of small businesses that will benefit from the stabilizing factor of this particular development...

Sixth, there is enough other development and choice in the area that Walmart will not be able to overwhelm say local pharmacies and thus be able to dictate, for instance the sale of birth control pills in the area...

Seventh, having affordable retail in the area will stop a complete gentrification of the surrounding residential development by allowing low income families to survive...

Eighth, local political figures, not the administration, have been able to demand Union Labor be used on site...

Ninth, this signals that National chain stores are finally keen on developing in downtown Cleveland....

So there you have my view of this particular story....

It isn;t complete because I am no longer wired into the political leadership of Cleveland as I once was...

Suffice it to say, this project is proceeding despite Walmart, not because of it... The deal had fallen through because a few courageous council people had taken a stand against Walmarts usual practice.... Walmart caved on this development... They wanted to develop there and so agreed to the Union and hiring demands...

[redqueen]

2. Union Labor means a LOT

That's most of my problem with Wally World.

If we could force Wal Mart to behave as a responsible corporate citizen, I'd have no problem with them.

I'd say the truth to bullshit ratio in that article is about 1:10.

[Zuni]

3. If Walmart paid their workers based on what they deserve

for making Wal Mart the richest company in the world, and provided better benefits and stopped being the number one corporate outsourcer to China's gulag labor, then they would be ok

[WCGreen]

5. But in a major metropolitan area....

There is more competition...

they are also bringing jobs to an area of Cleveland that desperatly needs them...

Remember, the development includes Home Depot and Target and about 20 or thirty other stores....

They need this development....

The area is a wasteland....

[redqueen]

13. Exactly. One of the claims in the propoganda packet that was handed out

was that they couldn't afford to pay more to the workers because they operate at such a slim profit margin.

:rofl:

[asthmaticeog]

39. I live right by Steelyard Commons.

I'd like to go point by point here, if you'll indulge me:

"First, the Steel mills are not coming back. Period. That part of Cleveland is now destined to history...."

Indisputably true - LTV's execs have twice used public bailout money not to streamline operations to bring their mill in line with modern practices that have made their mill obsolete, but to give themselves golden parachutes. May they burn for what they've done.


"Second, there is no real retail center left in the area...."

Incorrect. Ridge & Brookpark is 5 minutes from Steelyard Commons - three shopping centers, all right on top of each other, ranging from shit-tons of big box (including a Wal-Mart) to a wealth of thrift stores.


"Third, they have been trying to redevelop three key areas in Cleveland and all three area, Tremont, the Warehouse District and Ohio City, have all sputtered since there is no place to shop for suburban type products."

Redevelopment in Tremont and Ohio City has stalled for many reasons, but to say that a lack of suburban amenities is *the* reason for a stall in inner-city development is a tad off the mark, don't you think? Tremont's stall in particular is tied to the real-estate bubble. The "urban pioneers" who bought $350,000 townhouses atop the ridge over the asphalt plant are now trying to move away, as they have school-age kids they (quite rightly) would rather send to suburban schools than to Cleveland's, and they're not getting their money back out of those houses, as they were never worth that much to begin with. Warehouse District has its own set of stupids, but the opening of Constantino's Market has ameliorated the worst of them. And Warehouse dwellers aren't the Wal-Mart crowd, anyway.


"Fourth, there is only one Lumber Yard any where near that area..."

I think there are two, but I don't know what that means anyway, so I'm just going to leave it.


"Fifth, there are hundreds of small businesses that will benefit from the stabilizing factor of this particular development..."

Those businesses are going to be fucked sideways by this development. Kiss much of the West 25th St. area goodbye when S.C. opens for business. Quite possibly including the Dave's Supermarket. And that goes double for Clark ave., which has already lost its supermarket anchor.


"Sixth, there is enough other development and choice in the area that Walmart will not be able to overwhelm say local pharmacies and thus be able to dictate, for instance the sale of birth control pills in the area..."

That's true for now. Wal-Marts *have* historically tended to overwhelm and decimate local businesses, so how durable those other choices are remains to be seen, but there's plenty of credible documentia that says "not so long."


"Seventh, having affordable retail in the area will stop a complete gentrification of the surrounding residential development by allowing low income families to survive..."

Gentrification has already stalled, for reasons cited above, so old-school Tremonsters and OCers are safe for the forseeable future, and neither neighborhood's gentrification was ever intended to be "complete" anyway. Plus a lot of my low-income neighbors were right out in front in the fight against this Wal-Mart.


"Eighth, local political figures, not the administration, have been able to demand Union Labor be used on site..."

Three cheers to Joe Cimperman and Frank Jackson for that. And may a randomly-falling icepick find Jane Campbell's cranium... But isn't the union qualification limited to the construction phase? Wal-Mart is still going to be able to fuck it's store workers.


"Ninth, this signals that National chain stores are finally keen on developing in downtown Cleveland."

Oh goody, downtown can *finally* look like Crocker Park now. :eyes:

[WCGreen]

41. Five minutes, by highway.....

maybe....

Yea, the redevelopment of that area has stalled for a lot of reasons... But not being able to get stuff that we can get in the suburbs is a stalling factor for some people to move in....

Look at North Olmsted if you think that a lot of the smaller businesses will be run out of business.... North Olmsted has grown in spite of the Walmart... Look at the Ridge Park Square.... That too has grown in spite of Walmart....

The documentation for retail overwhelming is probably centered on development in areas where it becomes an either or choice...

Treamont is doomed because of the stench.... I so wanted to live down there and couldn't because of polution....

Valid points...

BTW, Crocker Park isn't all that bad.... Compared to the alternative... At least they are trying to make a mixed retail/office/living area..... Too many rich people but hey, it's fun to go and watch the parade and preening...

As for Dave's, I don't think it will kill them or the West Side Market....

On Edit... Lumber yards is what we use to call Home Depot stores......

[asthmaticeog]

44. Good post.

It's OK that not being able to get suburban consumer goods keeps people from moving to the city. That's why there are different kinds of places to live. I get so fucking sick of all my new "neighbors" who immediately want to terraform the place to look like what they just moved away from. Why'd they move if they really just can't live without a cookie boutique? They knew what was and wasn't here, no? It's simultaneously disheartening and hilarious to watch their attempts at opening "upmarket" shops here flop. God, I'm jaded...

Olmsted is ALL national retail now - I can't think of a single homegrown business up that stretch of Lorain near Great Northern Blvd., save for a couple of restaurants -- and it's ghastly-looking, too.

As for the smell in Tremont, point taken, but now that LTV's in the shitter, it's way less. And you get used to it - I've been there for ten years and I honestly don't smell it anymore. OTOH, my friends can smell ME a mile away... :cry:

I genuinely think Dave's is at risk - if it were just Target and Borders and suchlike going into SC, no biggie, since none of them muck around in the grocery business, but Marts Wal and K could put a dent into Dave's but HARD. The West Side Market, I absolutely agree, is unfuckwithable.

Crocker Park could be worse, true. And it's priceless as an irony generator. Been to Legacy Village yet? Also highly amusing. But in any case, downtown shouldn't look like either of them.

[WCGreen]

47. Well, it's just that the stuff I can easily get in the burbs...

shouldn't be a day trip into the city...

It should be available in the area so that the money stays in the area...

Been to legacy... I actually like Crocker Park... We worked on the campaign to change the zoning so that this area would have a concrete development plan instead of the crap in North Olmsted...

Sad note, I use to play as a kid in the vast tracts of scrub and old grape vies and meandering creeks that was there before Crocker Rd...

Lorain road, from 210 to Dover Center is pretty much small business...

BTW, we almost bought the Literary Cafe twenty years ago... The place was only open one day a week, some drunks lived upstairs... It was the smell that drove me away... My health can't stand the pollution..

[asthmaticeog]

49. DAMN!

You almost bought the Lit, eh? Shame you didn't. I like the place well enough, just that'd be cool.

Re: the drunks upstairs - either of 'em named "Robert Richie," perchance?

[WCGreen]

50. I don't remember...

But I went on down to the Cindy vigil back in August....

When Joani was in town, I took her over to see the development....

When I was the treasurer of the party, I was all over treamont....

Lola, blackened Meat loaf......

We looked at a house down there that didn't have any indoor plumbing.... And this was in 1989.....

[miss_kitty]

4. uh wow

"...Health care is another oft-cited complaint. Only about 48 per cent of Wal-Mart's workers buy into the company's health care plan, and critics say that's because it's too expensive: US$40 a month for an individual and US$155 for a family, plus a US$1,000 deductible. A recent study by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley concluded Wal-Mart's wages and benefits are so low that its workers in California rely on about US$86 million in public assistance every year. On the other hand, Wal-Mart points out that only about 36 per cent of all retail workers get employee-sponsored health care in the U.S. -- meaning its plan is better than most in its industry...."

Ok just because other retailers don't offer health care, the fact that Wal-Mart offers substandard healthcare plans makes it ok? When Wal-Mart cites the 36% number are they talking about ALL retailers (small shops with 1-19 employees) or just big box stores or what?

[redqueen]

14. It doesn't matter

It's like bush saying we're not as bad as saddam with the torture... it's still torture!

One look at Wal Mart's profit reports is all you need to know that they can and should offer better plans to their workers.

[miss_kitty]

46. my point exactly

[hfojvt]

20. is $155 a month really too expensive?

I am not sure it matters if they are talking about all employers, which I assume they are. But Wal-mart is often bashed for putting those mom and pops out of business, but they are probably a better employer wage and bennies wise than a mom and pop, even for mom and pop. As a self-employed bookstore owner I was working 55 hour weeks for basically room and board, and only because I lived in the basement. Does UC-Berkeley study how much workers in the entire retail sector are relying on public assistance?

[WCGreen]

24. We pay about 125.00 a month and have a 500 deductable...

[hfojvt]

36. with your employer, or on your own?

I know there are more generous employers. I pay nothing and am not sure about a deductible since I have co-pays. However, I think it cost me $100 a month as a single person when I was a part timer. I am unsure since I decided to do without. It was more than I wanted to pay, and I am sure it was more than $40 a month.

[WCGreen]

48. We pay that and the employer pays the rest......

[miss_kitty]

51. let's see...If I were a single mom

and making barely above minimum wage, AND had a $1000 deductible, yeah, I think that would be quite a bit. Say this single mom is making $8.00 per hour. 8x40 = 320. 4x 320=$1280 per mo. 52 x 320=$16640 per year. Before taxes. 12 x 155=$1860+$1000 deductible=$2860 per year. That leaves the single mom with a gross per annum of $13780. Then the coverage takes over. This doesn't cover dental or vision, I am assuming. More than one kid? Same wage, same cost, more expenses.

So say it's one kid. There's rent, child care school supplies and clothing, food-I don't know-you tell me-could you do it?

You are correct though to question the depth of the Berkley study. I did not do that.

[Mizmoon]

38. As someone who has considered going into business

the whole thing where insurance happens through your employer is a crappy idea.

First of all it stunts the creation of new businesses growth because you can't afford to provide the kind of insurance your employees deserve when you're starting out. Second you have to go without insurance yourself for a while because you're self-employed and responsible people have trouble exposing their family to that kind of risk. Our system is bad for business. Why Democrats don't harp on these points I'll never know.

[miss_kitty]

52. Because they're too busy approving Bush's SCOTUS choices

without a fight. :(

[redqueen]

53. Insurance industry donates to a lot to them as well.

*sigh*

[1gobluedem]

6. I would be more inclined to believe this

From Wal-Mart watch:

http://walmartwatch.com/home/pages/bully_report

There is a case study on the bait and switch tactics used in Cleveland.

[WCGreen]

7. The report is misleading...

They infer that Walmart is taking the place of the steel industry...

They aren't...

That industry is gone from Cleveland and will never return...

Also, Walmart has behaved just like every other company building in cleveland.... this bait and switch tactic is nothing new for development in Cleveland...

In fact, out "local" developers, won't make a single move without sweetheart deals, tax abatements and zoning easements....

I hate being in this position of having to defend Walmart...

[WCGreen]

8. Dupe

[HEyHEY]

9. Fucking Maclean's wrote this?

[HEyHEY]

10. When I have time I'm reading this

Then writing a letter

[WCGreen]

11. Before you do, please look at what I wrote....

[redqueen]

15. God bless you HEyHEY!

:loveya:

:hug:

:*

[HEyHEY]

18. Well, this guy is supporting

A major US company in Canada, which means all the profit goes south.... it's just common sense

[redqueen]

21. Not really.

All the profit goes to Wal Mart's shareholders, board members, executives and such... and who knows where they live? Mostly the US probably but definitely not all.

I wonder how much in taxes Wal Mart pays to Uncle Sam. I'm sure they have to pay something to CA. At least I hope so...

[HEyHEY]

26. Yeah, but

There's a ton of people working for WM that don't live in Canada, or own shares Canadian retailers should be supported

[redqueen]

28. I agree.

Those cheap prices... people are too willing to shop themselves right into the unemployment line.

[Bassic]

12. That's dumb shit.

just dumb shit.

[redqueen]

16. It's being handed out to their employees.

It's beyond dumb shit. It's fucking lies.

:mad:

[WCGreen]

17. YEa, but the stuff about Cleveland....

that bothers me..

Both Macleans and the study someone else brought up doesn't really tell the story..

[redqueen]

22. Well that's another issue, isn't it?

No different really from any other place I don't think. Cronyism everywhere.

[WCGreen]

25. Cleveland is rife with it....

There is so much development going on in the suburbs that Cleveland is forced to pay off every potential developer.....

If you really want to see who is raping the cities of the USA, look at almost every sports team and you will see huge tax abatements, eminent Domain issues and sweetheart deals out the ying yang...

[redqueen]

27. Yes but it's the city councils that allow this crap.

We need more people willing to pay attention and do something... and the people need help... we need research that backs us up so we can go to city council meetings and be heard and not ignored.

[WCGreen]

30. It was the mayor in our city who was bending over backwards.

It was the city council who tried to tame the Walmart machine

[redqueen]

33. Oh sorry

I forget cities have more than one model. Our city has a weak mayor setup.

I suppose wherever the power is, that will be the focus of the lobbying forces.

[WCGreen]

34. I really have mixed feelings about Walmart

I won't shoop there...

But I think this development is needed....

If you could see what it is replacing....

[redqueen]

35. I hear you

If they can get a union in there, then that's all the better.

[Bassic]

19. I'm happy we're giving them a hard time over here.

They closed a store down because it formed a union (as did McDonald's by the way). Now two other stores are forming unions and others are taking about it. Think they'll close 'em all?

[redqueen]

23. They'll probably just try to get out from under the law

that forces them to allow collective bargaining. I'm sure there are plenty of repugs and sold-out dems willing to help them do so.

[Bassic]

29. Yeah, but in Québec

The union laws are pretty strong. Even though we've got a right wing govrenement right now, they won't try that shit for fear of angering us even more (the blundering fools)

[redqueen]

31. Ah yes that's right.

Canada has politicians that probably actually care about keeping unions strong.

[Bassic]

32. That we do.

Not all of them mind you, but a fair share.

[Graf Orlok]

37. .

:puke:

[jobycom]

40. Actually, the article makes a lot of good points

Some of it depends on where you are. I've lived in small towns where the prices were so high that you drove to the nearest big town to shop. I remember one of those towns getting a big Walmart. Stores and restaurants opened all around the Walmart, businesses further out began to undergo renovations. It wasn't all Walmart, of course. The reason Walmart was able to open a big store was because the town was growing, so some of the revival would have happened, anyway.

But not all of it. The Walmart became a local draw for the surrounding countryside. Rather than driving in to Austin, some sixty or more miles, the outlying countryside would drive the five miles to Walmart, eat at the local restaurants, and go home.

As for wages, in this town there were no wages before. People worked in Austin, or at very small mom and pop gas stations or food stands, and I'm sure none of these paid benefits or anything much above minimum wages. When I first moved there, there was a MCDonald's, a Taco Bell, a Burger Tex, and building that changed restaurants every six months. By the time I left, there were a lot of restaurants, and no significant business closings.

The Walmart did help the economy, it did provide cheaper food and basics for the area, and it cut down on the trips into Austin for people. It even provided jobs for students, the elderly, and others at entry level who couldn't feasibly drive into Austin.

I'm sure there are as many places where Walmarts have hit the local economies like wrecking balls, and I'm sure there are places that have been hit by Walmart buying merchandise made overseas. I'm also sure it's a complex situation, and that not every place is the same. There are a lot Walmarts in Austin itself, where I now live, and I doubt they even put a ripple into the economy one way or the other. If they weren't there, someone else would be, filling the same economic and employment niche. It might be a range of stores instead of one large one, but it would still exist.

One more thing: After katrina, the two stores that re-opened the fasted in Gulfport were Home Depot and Walmart. A lot of smaller stores opened, too, but they were lower on stock, not able to get shipments, not able to finance the repairs needed sometimes to reopen quickly. I bought some supplies at an Ace Hardware with no eletricity and gaping holes in the rough, not to mention puddles of water everywhere. About all they had were pipe fittings and dog collars, and basics. When we were finally able to get to an open Walmart, we could buy food and clothing that had been destroyed, we could pay with a credit card--a lot of banks weren't open yet--and we could get on with the recovery. Same with Home Depot.

So I think Walmart's a mixed bag. Both sides have strong issues. To me, the biggest issue is the big picture of the economy. If you made all Walmarts vanish, the economy would not improve. The smaller businesses that opened to take its place would either not be able to match the low prices, or would not be able to pay their employees any better, or both. People would pay higher prices, burn more gas, and not make more money. And smaller businesses would not be able to provide better health care.

On the other hand, if we improve the economy through better government, tax collections from the people who use the most resources (the wealthy), better spending programs, better health care, and job training and education programs, then Walmart will have to raise wages and provide better incentives just to maintain its staff, and more people could afford to shop at higher priced stores.

Just my two cents. I rarely shop at Walmart myself, but mostly because the checkout lines are so slow, and I can afford to pay more to avoid those lines. On the other hand, I hit three different stores sometimes to buy what I could have at Walmart, so I burn more gas than I have to and waste more time I could spend on DU writing these ridiculously long ramblings that no one will read.

[redqueen]

42. Thanks

"On the other hand, if we improve the economy through better government, tax collections from the people who use the most resources (the wealthy), better spending programs, better health care, and job training and education programs, then Walmart will have to raise wages and provide better incentives just to maintain its staff, and more people could afford to shop at higher priced stores."

Exactly. Another way to improve the economy - fair wage laws.

The consumer dollar is 90% of the engine that drives the economy. The investor class already spends what it wants. It's the workers and the lower middle class that would spend more income on the things they need.

[jobycom]

45. Yes

That's why social spending programs like Welfare, food stamps and unemployment are better stimulants than tax cuts for the wealthy. The people who collect such money spend it immediately, stimulating the economy. Tax cuts to the wealthy go into a veriety of areas, including overseas investments and retail spending (through overseas trips, etc), tax free investments that do stimulate the economy, but not as directly, etc. And that's not even getting into investments in large corporations and how they are used to undermine smaller businesses.

We need better fair wage laws, especially minimum wage limits that take into account the diversity of the economy, but that don't break entry-level business. I'd like to see a system that cuts more into the profit-taking wages, so that investors and owners can't cut wages and jobs as a way to keep their profits high when their mismanagement begins to sink the business. Worker protection from investors, whether for employee retirement plans (as at Enron) or for basic wages and employment levels (lay-offs that expect fewer people to do the same job so investors can maintain steady profit-taking even when the profits shrink), are ideas whose time has come.

[Orsino]

43. "Wal-Mart revolution"?

Horse hockey. They're about as revolutionary as the Chinese government.

Who wrote this puff piece, which by the way fails to address any serious W-M criticisms? I thought only Americans could prostitute themselves so thoroughly.

[RedCloud]

54. My Queen, they have forsaken thy rules...

Twas but a childish prank,
yet they pulled rank,
on one who besmirched the great deceiver,
a thumbs down from that disbeliever,
I do believe he meant no harm,
yet off he'll go to the prison farm/

[miss_kitty]

55. Another reason it is good: Wal-Mart protects us from sedition

http://progressive.org/mag_mc100405

Wal-Mart Turns in Student’s Anti-Bush Photo, Secret Service Investigates Him

"...(Selina) Jarvis (the teacher) had assigned her senior civics and economics class “to take photographs to illustrate their rights in the Bill of Rights,” she says. One student “had taken a photo of George Bush out of a magazine and tacked the picture to a wall with a red thumb tack through his head. Then he made a thumb’s down sign with his own hand next to the President’s picture, and he had a photo taken of that, and he pasted it on a poster.”

According to Jarvis, the student, who remains anonymous, was just doing his assignment, illustrating the right to dissent.

But over at the Kitty Hawk Wal-Mart, where the student took his film to be developed, this right is evidently suspect.

An employee in that Wal-Mart photo department called the Kitty Hawk police on the student. And the Kitty Hawk police turned the matter over to the Secret Service..."

[NMMNG]

56. Oy

The average full-time Wal-Mart worker in the U.S. makes US$9.68 an hour, which works out to roughly US$17,500 a year before taxes.


At first I looked at this and thought "that really sucks". Then I realized that I make slightly less than that at one of my jobs--after ten years at the agency, and with 18 years total in the field! :cry::cry::cry: