  Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 85 Registered: 07-2006 |
Saw this article a few days ago in the LA Times / AP and thought about posting it for discussion after reading other recent threads including the Cleveland Steelyard Commons, which is also to include a Wal-Mart supercenter: http://www.latimes.com/busines s/la-fi-walmart20feb20,1,17820 8.story?coll=la-headlines-busi ness We've talked before about Wal-Marts opening in the City... no mention of Detroit in this article. Seems like this program would be a great opportunity to see if a store of this type can endure all of the alleged "hardships" of operating a store in the inner city. Not that I like Wal-Mart at all, but that doesn't mean it can't be an economic engine. | ||
Yelloweyes Member Username: Yelloweyes Post Number: 85 Registered: 02-2007 |
It makes business sense. A lot of people from Detroit go to retailers in the inner-burbs. For example the Walmart on 12 & Gratiot sees a lot of traffic from Detroit. Source: working with the Detroit Eastside community. | ||
Chitaku Member Username: Chitaku Post Number: 1183 Registered: 03-2006 |
No Wal-Mart....even in Detroit.Places like Wal-mart are why there are not many good jobs here | ||
1953 Member Username: 1953 Post Number: 1311 Registered: 12-2004 |
Here, here, Chitaku! Let's race to the bottom of global income! Low quality junk for all! | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1003 Registered: 04-2006 |
No need to worry, there is a super Walmart opening one block from the Detroit Border in Dearborn so that everyone can fill up on useless junk. | ||
Thejesus Member Username: Thejesus Post Number: 636 Registered: 06-2006 |
"No Wal-Mart....even in Detroit.Places like Wal-mart are why there are not many good jobs here" lol...some of you are just unbelieveable... Anyone who adopts this mentality deserves whatever poverty comes there way (Message edited by thejesus on February 22, 2007) | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5563 Registered: 02-2004 |
Wal-Wart is building their supercenter in economically distress racially supported Livonia. That would lure some black-folks over there to work shop and maybe occupy those neighborhoods over there, too. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 205 Registered: 12-2006 |
Wal Mart is an interesting flash point for a lot of discussions. In Marine City, a group of citizens fought against the proposed new Wal Mart, then the state DEQ intervened on a wetlands issue, and the store idea is dead. Whatever you think of Wal Mart, they provide goods at low prices (important in an economically depressed area like, say, southeast Michigan) and they provide jobs. Not great jobs, but then I have never seen a Wal Mart manager hiring at gunpoint; people take these jobs voluntarily because there are no better jobs out there. So in Marine City, there will be no Wal Mart, the couple hundred jobs never materialized, and the only shopping available in that part of St. Clair County is a run-down K Mart. Meanwhile across the river in Wallaceburg, Ontario, the city and its residents embraced a big new employer with open arms; the store is being constructed today (employing lots of construction workers) and will soon open (employing lots of retail workers). Which scenario looks better if you are the person who needs a job or the person who wants to save money on things? Hmm... | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 121 Registered: 11-2005 |
Wal*Mart is a business--a generator of jobs (retail and construction), taxes and income to investors. They are engaged in the exact business that Target, Kmart, Meijer and many others are in--their wages and supply chain are all but identical. They are no more or no less deserving of criticism than any of their competitors. It's interesting to note that the Dearborn Supercenter will open in a location that Kmart failed to make work. Thus Wal*Mart is creating (or recreating) jobs where previous jobs were lost. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 612 Registered: 12-2005 |
"Wal-Mart's critics are the economic equivalent of hysterical quack doctors running around trying to cure an imaginary health epidemic by injecting people with real diseases." I would characterize their critics as being economically illiterate, but that doesn't mean that they have to stay that way. They can click on the link above and read Kirklin's article wherein he explains in simple terms the economic concepts of creating wealth (not money), productivity, prices, standard of living, capital, employment, wages (including executive compensation), etc. and makes the case that Wal-Mart has made a positive economic impact in all of these areas. | ||
Christos Member Username: Christos Post Number: 51 Registered: 12-2006 |
Wal-Mart is NOT a generator of jobs- in fact it is a jobs black hole. For every 2 jobs Wal-Mart creates, 3 are lost. Furthermore, Wal-Mart stores are magnets for crime (the typical Wal-Mart store has 4 times more incidents of violent crime than a typical Target in the same demographic neighborhood). They are also a HUGE burden on taxpayers. Unlike thier competitors, they have a MUCH higher proportion of employees on public assistance and insist on expansion through government handouts rather than obeying the laws of free-market capitalism. Unlike thier competitors, rather than insure thier workers, they teach them all how to sign up for medicaid so we the taxpayers have to pay for thier insurance. The estimated cost to Michigan taxpayers, btw is like $26 Million annually. Detroit cannot afford such a burden of more crime, more job loss, and more citizens on public assistance. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 206 Registered: 12-2006 |
Christos, If Wal Mart stores have higher rates of crime than Target stores, is that not because Wal Mart will build stores in locations that, for demographic reasons, Target will not? Or are you blaming Wal Mart for the crimes, in which case please try to justify the claim. Where do you get your data that "for every two jobs Wal Mart creates, three are lost"? If a Wal Mart had opened in Marine City, it would have employed people who did not have jobs already for the most part, and the stores downtown already went under when the K Mart opened in the 1970s. There aren't, for the most part, any jobs left to lose. With regard to your other statement, Wal Mart is playing a perfectly legal game set up by the US Federal Government. Our country does not require corporations to provide benefits, and many provide no benefits whatever. Wal Mart provides benefits, but less so than the manufacturing plants we used to have around here (but for the most part no longer do). At least Wal Mart tells its lower-compensated employees how to take advantage of the legal assistance provided to them by the Government. Many employers do not even go that far, and leave their employees to fend for themselves. By the way, the "laws of free-market capitalism" do not apply in a country like the modern US where every industry is regulated and the Government moves huge piles of money around. Every industry is subsidized or penalized by Government in some way, and some industries are both subsidized and penalized. We do not have a free-market economy in the US and have not had one for many decades. Wal Mart obeys the rules, for the most part, as the Government has seen fit to set them. Where do you get the idea that a Wal Mart in Detroit would cost jobs in Detroit, even if your 3-for-2 ratio is true? Where are those people supposedly working today, such that their jobs would be lost? I am by no means an apologist for Wal Mart, but I do object to people who think that because the Government is inept at creating sound economic rules, someone taking advantage of what is there is somehow immoral. Professor Scott | ||
Jiminnm Member Username: Jiminnm Post Number: 1190 Registered: 02-2005 |
Christos, I suggest that you read Prof Scott's postings several times, and then try a little Milton Friedman. My parents live in rural, small town Tennessee and were thrilled when a WalMart opened in their town. That meant they didn't have to drive to a little larger town 15 miles away and shop for groceries and other products that were previously unavailable near where they lived. Yes, some smaller merchants closed their doors afterward - but they couldn't match the prices or the range of goods available. In fact, my parents know a couple who later went to work at WalMart and made as much or more money than they did when running their own business. | ||
East_detroit Member Username: East_detroit Post Number: 967 Registered: 11-2003 |
Professor Scott, Not sure of your cognitive perception... crap is better than nothing? So, lets lower the bar and everyone hop on board? | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 655 Registered: 08-2006 |
I hate Wal Mart too, but if they are willing to open a store in Detroit and employ residents, I won't be standing in there way. It's not like most people in this area have better options. At least their shoddy treatment of workers has been making the news. Wal Mart does not want bad publicity, they will attempt to fix these issues so long as we keep the spotlight on them. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1210 Registered: 02-2004 |
They don't fix the issues, they hide them. WalMart kills small businesses, lies to and abuses their work force, instead throwing money at politicians and blowing smoke up the eager ass of the media. | ||
Chitaku Member Username: Chitaku Post Number: 1185 Registered: 03-2006 |
Read "The United States of Wal-Mart", NO WAL-MART IN DETROIT!!!!! cue Karl explaining how clueless I am for not supporting Shit-Mart | ||
Dds Member Username: Dds Post Number: 136 Registered: 10-2006 |
I hope the people that are against a Detroit Wal-Mart, also had the same passion against casinos. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 656 Registered: 08-2006 |
Think of it this way. If Wal Mart opens a store south of 8 mile and does well, it won't be long before other entities, who are committed to better business practices, follow suit. The taxes they pay the city sure wouldn't hurt either. Home Depot was doing great up in Madison Heights, Lowes decided to open a store right next to them. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1211 Registered: 02-2004 |
Yes, Dds. At least some of us. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8378 Registered: 10-2003 |
I don't like Wal mart of their business practices but the simple fact of the matter is that most Detroiters take their business to the suburbs. I see a Walmart in Detroit as a compromise. It isn't ideal but it stems a part of the billions that Detroiters spend outside of the city. A walmart in Detroit will not hurt Detroit businesses it will just move Detroit dollars back into the city. I wish we were in a place that would allow us to pick and choose but the first priority should be to keep Detroit dollars in Detroit. That sure as hell is not happening right now. | ||
Toog05 Member Username: Toog05 Post Number: 111 Registered: 03-2006 |
Agreed JT1, Detroiters help make the suburbs keep dollars big time. | ||
Rrl Member Username: Rrl Post Number: 743 Registered: 12-2003 |
Personally, I've never shopped at Wal-mart, never felt the urge to or had the need, always had other, and what I considered, better options. But for areas that are underserved, why would WM be a bad idea? Heres a scenario: Wal-Mart floats the idea of a building one of their 500+ acre mega-stores in an underserved part of Detroit, but wants huge incentives, subsidies and tax breaks to do it. My money says that the CC & KK would be falling all over themselves to give them whatever they wanted, just to say they brought more "development" to the City, while long-term, they sell out the City's financial health for a couple hundred jobs. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2613 Registered: 10-2004 |
I don't foresee any Wal-Marts or Meijers entering Detroit until some firm gentrification is underway. Remember the recent Kroger fiasco on Gratiot and Lappin or the Super K-Mart on Meyer? | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 165 Registered: 10-2003 |
Wal-Mart should not be given any incentives or subsidies. Considering how little they pay for product and how little they pay their employees, their profit margins are high enough. If Wal-Mart can't pay taxes like everyone else, then let them stay out of Detroit. A little ways down the road they will be begging to move in and won't need to be given incentives or subsidies. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2615 Registered: 10-2004 |
quote: This silliness sounds like what the mother of a spinster daughter replies when somebody asks if her daughter is married yet: "No, but she's tired from all the asking!" | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 167 Registered: 10-2003 |
Alright, that was probably too much optimism. I know how poorly you react to that kind of thing. ;) | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4856 Registered: 11-2003 |
jt1 and professorscott tell it like it tis. Wal-Mart has been trying to build in the inner city all over USA. They are also trying to reform their benefits packages. They say that on average a family can save $2,500 annually on grocery bills. Dime store wages are a fact of life for the industry. They are NOT a place where highly skilled journeymen workers find employment. See them as Woolworths, Kresges, and you'll sleep at night. They are third tier employers. Detroit is so devoid of retail, perhaps big-box Wal-Mart can find a little parcel and try a store. We all know Detroit has a bit of vacant land for them. Really, who are they supplanting in Detroit? The analogy is not the same as "invasion" of some small town in the UP. However bad, the taxes and jobs, plus the availablity of goods locally is important. Nobody has mentioned the fact that many many older Wal-Mart employees have retired with huge stock porfolios worth millions. Let's not judge the whole company as if you are a part-timer selling socks. Some folks have done quite well by them. jjaba. (who has never shopped Wal-Mart, lifetime.) | ||
Rrl Member Username: Rrl Post Number: 744 Registered: 12-2003 |
Jjaba is wise. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1212 Registered: 02-2004 |
Jjaba, I respectfully disagree. You are talking about employees who worked for old Sam Walton. The newer employees get screwed, blued and tattooed by the company. If WalMart spent more time actually helping their employees instead of employing full time spin doctors, we would be singing a different tune. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 659 Registered: 08-2006 |
That's true the people who retired with huge pensions did so because they bought the stock for pennies when Wal Mart went public in the 70s. The same would not be possible for someone starting there today. However, I can see them bowing to pressures and promoting more females and minorities to manager positions. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 315 Registered: 07-2006 |
not that i like walmart, but is any retail company any different? I worked for a mid-level national department store for 5 years, full time, with one of the highest paid hourly jobs in the store, and still only made about 10 bucks an hour, and paid nearly as much in one month for health insurance as i did at an auto supplier in a year. I understand from old coworkers that it's gotten considerably worse in the years since i left. Pay cuts and benefit cuts have run rampant. Poor pay and benefits is nothing new to the retail industry, particularly on the low end of the scale, it's just that walmart is the biggest target (no pun intended) these days. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1214 Registered: 02-2004 |
WalMart is the industry standard. I agree, douchebaggery is how retail gets done (I worked 20 years at various retail establishments). But WM is the biggest douchebag of all, as much as a symbol as a practitioner. But at least a few of them are getting better, and a Michigan company like Meijer is unionized. Or WalMart could follow an leader like Costco, who believe in helping their employees succeed. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 207 Registered: 12-2006 |
All of these companies are out to make money, not to provide jobs, pay, benefits or services to employees. For the most part they will do what the law requires, and in the US that isn't much. Union jobs are by far better than nonunion jobs but union jobs are few and far between. Nonunion jobs are better than no jobs. If we want the playing field to be more level, and better, for employees, then we need to get serious about how Government, employers and employees interact. One way to do that would be to really reform health care, not the overly cautious attempt Hillary & Co. made several years ago, but real reform. In the City of Detroit, and many other parts of the region, I contend that Wal Mart jobs (which nobody is compelled at gunpoint to take) are better than no jobs. | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 123 Registered: 11-2005 |
Why is that people feel the "threat" of Wal-Mart when they are entitled to shop elsewhere? No one in a blue smock is coming to your house and dragging your from bed at gunpoint to buy your Speed Stick at Wal*Mart. The old addage that Wal*Mart forces small businesses to close is tired and barely factual. What forces small businesses to close is their inability to compete. Kmart, Sears, JCPenney and many others who were national when WMT was still confined to Arkansas and Oklahoma, have had a lot more long-term impact on "mom and pop" stores and downtown Main Streets than Wal*Mart ever did. What Wal*Mart did was do exactly what their predecessors did--they only managed to do it better. Hating Wal*Mart for being 'big business' is fine if you hate big business--but don't single out one competitor in the industry and brand it as evil merely because it's the biggest. And, since we're on the topic of Wal*Mart opening urban stores--in all seriousness, if one opened south of 8 Mile tomorrow--exactly which retailers in Detroit would it be threatening to put out of business? If you hate Wal*Mart and they open in Detroit, nothing is stopping you from driving to the suburbs and shopping at Target. We have had a couple of Wal*Mart's within the city limits here in Windsor since 1994--and I'm pretty sure our city hasn't fallen into a mire of grating poverty and anarchy...at least not because of Wal*Mart. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4860 Registered: 11-2003 |
Fastcarsfreedom makes some good points. Tells it like it tis. We have plenty of examples of small guys doing just fine. For example, you can still sell tvs and applicances with good prices and great service. We have indie service stations, furniture stores, restaurants, bars, liquor stores, gas stations, doctors, lawyers, accountants and a neighborhood barbers/salons. You know I'm Union Oldredfordette, but why can't you organize Wal-Mart? You beat Henry Ford and his thugs, you beat GM and their cops, you can beat Wal-Mart with the right message. Hell, workers at Kroger, Costco, and many retailers aren't treated badly. You are right, with 1.8 million workers, Wal-Mart sets the standard of $10.21/hr. ave. shopfloor wages. That's poverty really. That isn't a "family" wage as they say. An "average wage" must be $35,000 annual to make ends meet on the minimal scale. That's $16.82 an hour. Wal-Mart has a ways to go, eh. jjaba, Westsider. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 5570 Registered: 02-2004 |
I agree with Professorscott's thesis: Wal-Mart has become its own nation ruled by big brother. I suggest you all should reads John Dicker's THE UNITED STATES OF WAL-MART. Mr. Dicker who is a journalist for a Denver newspaper, expose EVIL Wal-Mart's dirty little secrets. When I have read the book. I WAS SHOCKED!!! | ||
Wsugrad Member Username: Wsugrad Post Number: 12 Registered: 08-2006 |
Or see the film "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price" by Robert Greenwald. http://www.walmartmovie.com/ I've wondered for YEARS why Michigan based Meijer hasn't opened a store in the city. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 208 Registered: 12-2006 |
Meijer, like all big retail or restaurant chains, bases their location choices on economic demographics. There isn't anyplace in Detroit that meets their criteria. Jjaba, I've always wondered why technology workers have never organized. Some within that industry (e.g. computer programmers) are paid pretty well, but others (e.g. call center workers) are paid poverty wages, get few benefits, and in some cases employers don't even make a pretense of following US labor regulations. If you have friends still in the Union "biz" perhaps you could turn them on to that as a potential new source of members. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 604 Registered: 06-2005 |
It is funny how so many outsiders are crying foul from the bleachers, when the players themselves are just happy being on the field. As already mentioned above, nobody from WalMart is forcing you to walk into their HR Office and fill out their Job Application form. Nobody from WalMart is strapping you into the passenger seat and driving you to their stores to buy something. For many people, making $10/hour is better than making $7/hour. For the rest, making $10/hour is better than $0. In an economy like what we have here, nobody should be complaining about commercial interest and job creation. The flip side is to have more folks being homeless and standing in line at the nearest shelter. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4861 Registered: 11-2003 |
Darwinism, somewhere along the line, labor looks at what percentasge it gets compared to the profits. This Wal-Mart is a company of immense wealth who has a terrible reputation among the chattering classes like us. It doesn't have to be that way. Putting people in bread lines, food stamps, public housing, and Medicade shouldn't be such a source of pride for a first-tier employer who knows better and can do better by employees. Although they sell the cheapest farm-raised salmon, they can do it without polluting pristine waters in Chilean Fiords. jjaba. | ||
Darwinism Member Username: Darwinism Post Number: 605 Registered: 06-2005 |
I am not a WalMart supporter, but rather a supporter of providing people here with jobs. If WalMart is not being nice, well ..... simple enough, get Costco to come into Detroit instead. After all, they are hailed as a 'Saintly' company who cares for the employees tremendously. http://articles.moneycentral.m sn.com/Investing/Extra/CostcoT heAntiWalMart.aspx | ||
Andylinn Member Username: Andylinn Post Number: 328 Registered: 04-2006 |
chitaku, i'm with you. f*** walmart. as a localist, i don't want our money being sent to arkansas. screw that. spend money at local businesses. since moving back (6 months ago), i have spent 100% of my money at DETROIT based establishments... it isn't that hard... | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1215 Registered: 02-2004 |
Both SEIU and UNITE/HERE have been trying to organize WalMart for ever and ever. They are big and mean. This company closed stores - locked the doors and walked away - when a union was successfully organized. It's one of the most difficult jobs, organizing. When you've got bastards like WalMart, even worse. As far as call centers go, the same story here. Union comes in, company closes doors and opens somewhere else with all new people. Labor law in this country is skewed for the corporations, we need a big change. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 615 Registered: 12-2005 |
quote: The only ones I continually read or hear dissing Wal-Mart are the unionists among us. Besides the strident posters here, that would include my former neighbor and bowling partner (a UAW Local President) and my father (84 years old and still reading every issue of "The Building Tradesman" - in between driving my mother to the local Wal-Mart to do the grocery shopping). Left to natural forces, wages and benefits offered by a company like Wal-Mart will be comparable to those offered by similar companies for positions requiring similar job skills - otherwise, they would have trouble filling open positions and retaining their employees. Where Wal-Mart is different is through their adoption of technology to improve productivity and reduce internal costs, many of their jobs require lesser skills than their competitors. The unionists resent the fact that they have been unable to organize Wal-Mart and want you to believe that they are the devil incarnate. I see many parallels here between the effect Wal-Mart and the Japanese transplant automakers have had on their unionized competition. It is an economic fact that over the long haul, the lowest-cost and most productive producers/retailers will prevail - and that is exactly the lesson the UAW is learning as they prepare to enter negotiations for their next national and local contracts. Again, I would encourage the more open-minded lurkers on this thread to read Paul Kirklin's essay and decide for yourselves whether Wal-Mart represents the forces of evil or if they are a retailer who can be trusted to bring jobs and lower prices to those who need them the most. | ||
Christos Member Username: Christos Post Number: 52 Registered: 12-2006 |
UNITE-HERE hasn't been trying to organize Wal-Mart, you might be thinking of UFCW (United Food and Commercial Workers). First of all, Wal-Mart DOES NOT play by the rules. This company has gotten in trouble for locking in illegal immigrants to work in thier stores, is involved in the largest class action lawsuit on sexual discrimination in our nation's history, forces workers to work off the clock, violates labor standards, and knownly sells Nazi clothes in thier stores. The best source for all things Wal-Mart is www.wakeupwalmart.com . There they have a LONG list of Wal-Mart facts, and a TON of scientific studies that have been conducted on the effects of Wal-Mart in local communities as well as the economy as a whole. As for the selling Nazi T-shirts claim, that was also from Wakeupwalmart.com, but here is a link to the picture that shows the symbol in question: http://wakeupwalmart.com/image s/naziimagery.jpg Not only is it a Nazi symbol- but the symbol of the concentration camps and 3rd SS. Apparently when they discovered it they acknowledged it and claimed to get rid of all the shirt, but didnt. | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 129 Registered: 11-2005 |
Christos--are you suggesting now that there is some great Fourth Reich laying in wait in Bentonville? This smells a lot like the debate over Proctor & Gamble's so-called satanic logo--this is nothing short of hysteria and foolishness--and its these sort of arguments that discredit absolutely everything else these organizations claim--for better or worse. I can assure you that Wal*Mart's corporate site would happily offer a list of "facts" as long and reliable as the one from wakeupwalmart.com. Once again I fail to see the argument--if you don't like it, go somewhere else to buy your Folgers. The truth is that although these "sources" and "studies" claim that Wal*Mart's presence does all sorts of horrible things to communities--I don't see the cities and towns of this country coming apart at the seams and descending into darkness--and these stores are pretty much everywhere now. Once again--you have options, you can go to local stores, markets--or you could find yourself a unionized Home Depot, Costco, Kmart, Target, Meijer or Lowe's to spend your dollars at. While we're at it--why aren't we tearing McDonald's to shreds--those heathens not only pay minimum wage to their employees--they sell fatty foods too and have a clown to attract impressionable children. We do still live in a free society--vote with your dollars and let me vote with mine. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4865 Registered: 11-2003 |
It is fact that a Unionized Wal-Mart in Quebec was closed when the workers signed up. Wal-Mart hasn't been back since. They are strident anti-union. Mikeg, your points are well taken. jjaba has more of a balanced view than some, and expecially liked your comment about technology used by Wal-Mart to simplify tasks. It is well known that Sam Walton hired the smartest and most brilliant IBM scientific minds and adopted computerized efficiencies. All central managers must live in Bentonville, Ark. and be at the 8am Sat. staff meetings. They have an amzing inventory control system. Supply truckers must arrive at their warehouses at a precise time to get dockspace or lose the load. These efficiencies lower prices and save retail consumers on average $2,500 a yr. on groceries. But man, oh, man, Wal-Mart does have a terrible reputation among a whole hell of a lotta people. jjaba has made speeches to civic groups called "What's the Beef With Wal-Mart?" outlining both sides of the questions. And both sides have hammered him with comments. jjaba, always learning. | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 131 Registered: 11-2005 |
It's true jjaba, Wal*Mart has long had a stridently anti-unionization policy, it's part of their corporate ethos. When they came into Canada in 1994 they bought up all of the non-union Woolco stores and let Woolworth close the rump. Within a few years they built new stores in most of those markets (one being Leamington, Ontario south of Windsor). The unionized store they closed in Jonquiere, Quebec was a new-build, and not an old location inherited from Woolco. Wal*Mart's line was that the location didn't meet it's sales targets. Throughout the fight Wal*Mart was fairly blunt about the store's future should it be organized, yet the employees were shocked and teary-eyed when the announcement was made, and really, they should not have been surprised. Though you may not like how Wal*Mart dealt with the situation, they did deal with it as they saw fit, and I don't doubt they would do so again if they had to. The old Eastown store in Windsor, which was a converted Woolco was unionized for awhile but ended up decertified. The store was replaced a few years ago and a subsequent organization attempt at the new store failed. | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 665 Registered: 08-2006 |
Wal Mart has become an icon of anti union, low wages, no benefits, we pass these savings onto the consumer semantics. This helped them in the early 90s when their growth was exponential. They realize they now need to change that perception to stay on top. Tastes are changing and people are caring more about the low wage peons as several upper middle class people have had thier fortunes reversed since 2001 and have become low wage peons themselves. The lawsuits by states looking to enforce penalties on WM as they don't provide medical insurance, rather it is pushed off on the local taxpayer, served to further distance them from their conservative low price loving base. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4868 Registered: 11-2003 |
Cambrian and Fastcarfreedom make wonderful posts and tell it like it tis. The fact that Wal-Masrt is referring workers to public assistance welfare programs designed for the abject poor didn't sit well with anybody, nationwide, liberal or conservative. Now they say they are broadening their health insurance options, ofcourse still nowhere paying the costs compared to better employers. No taxpayers want to pay millions for Wal-Mart workers and the tax abatements given them by cities were way in excess for the jobs provided and business coming to towns. Chicago decided to let a Southside store go across the city line rather than give in to Wal-Mart's demands. So Detroit would have the same issues. Wal-Mart is so proud with what they think they offer a community, tax abatements and waivers of all manner of city ordinances is required by them. Wal-Mart has set wages, which have trickled into factories all over the country. Pay is $10.21/hr. and that's all you have to give shopfloor assembly line workers anymore. Thus, a nation reduced into poverty by one major employer with 1.8 million workers in USA. Wal-Mart replaces GM, or GE, ATT, or the RRs generations back. Wal-Mart now sets the wages. Remember that number, $10.21 an hr. And that's poverty. jjaba. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 2630 Registered: 10-2004 |
The primary blame for workers making low wages relates to whether they squandered away their youth or not by doing well in school and then college, vocational school, or trades programs. It's a shame that many never mature and simply go through life, blaming everybody and everything else for their lots in life instead of on their own laziness. Still, $10/hr is probably the free-market value for their skills. It could be that some are being overpaid while earning even less if they don't have proper work skills and ethics. (Message edited by LivernoisYard on February 23, 2007) | ||
Dede313 Member Username: Dede313 Post Number: 13 Registered: 11-2006 |
Walmart is a ``give and take`` corporation. Yes walmart is zapping the economy. Once a walmart is built..``Moms and Pops`` can call it a quits. They put Rubbermaid out of business too.They are letting the Chinese kill us economically. However the majority of America shop at walmart.It is affordable. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4873 Registered: 11-2003 |
Yes, the movies show the destructions of small town Main Streets when Wal-Mart arrives and show how Wal-Mart squeezes suppliers. Truth is, Main St. small town commerce dired up in the 1950s when the interstates came in. In 1962, Wal-Mart, Woolco, and K-Mart all were invented. K-Mart started in Garden City, Michigan. Go look at the site. To blame Starbucks for the demise of the corner cafe, and Mc Donalds for the end of the indie drive-in is a damn stretch. If you think like that, blame tv for the end of family card games, and cars for the end of the horse and buggy industry too. jjaba. | ||
Christos Member Username: Christos Post Number: 54 Registered: 12-2006 |
I love it when you site statistics and someone says "whats your source" and you give them your source and all of a sudden that source is not good enough only because they disagree with your premise. Anyways, the "studies" as you call them are not done by wakeupwalmart.com but just posted on there. If you have a sound, educated criticism of the studies posted on there, by all means feel free send scholarly criticism to the journals that they were originally published in. Don't disregard them simply because you dont agree with the politics of the web portal. And while I do not think that there is some "secret nazi cabal" in brentonville plotting a new reich- I just think its sad when a company has a CONCENTRATION CAMP logo on a t-shirt and not be able to do something as simple as taking them off the shelf. I used to work in retail, and that was my job- its not that hard. By the way, this is not a "wacko claim" - its the EXACT SAME LOGO as the one worn by that division of the SS. Anyways, in most cases I agree with the premise that as a consumer one does have the right to "vote with thier dollars" when spending money. I do all the time, as do many others. What makes Wal-Mart a unique case, however, is two things: 1) Unlike every other retailer/grocer in America Wal-Mart INSISTS on expanding at the taxpayer expense. 90% of thier distributions centers in the United States are subsidized (on average I THINK of $5 million per center) while about a third of thier retail outlets are either subsidized or given large tax abatements (this is from a study by I think it was UC Berkley called "Gov-Mart: Shopping for Subsidies". If you REALLY want I can get you a copy). On top of that they cost the government hundreds of millions in Medicaid, Section 8, food stamps, and other assistance programs. So now, even though I vote with my dollars elsewhere I have no choice but to subsidize thier expansion and thier business model- whether I like it or not. I dont think its fair that my tax dollars pay Lee Scott's salary! 2) As the largest corporation in the world, they have an INSANE amount of control over local labor markets. While we do not see this here in Michigan, as Meijer is around in the smaller towns to keep Wal-Mart in check, in other states this control over the local labor market actually causes large inefficiencies in local economies. We all know the story about how when Wal-Mart moves into a town they can undercut thier competitors (even if this means selling below cost which is illegal but VERY difficult to prove)- but when they become the only employer in town they form a monopsony on labor- that is they are the only purchaser of unskilled labor in a specific market. Monopsonies, like monopolies cause market inefficiencies becuase firms which are supposed to act as price takers now become price makers, creating a deadweight loss in the labor market due to the complete loss of labor producer's surplus. This inefficiecny however, does not only cause the price of labor to drop- but more importantly gives Wal-Mart complete control over the working conditions. Walmart now can have an almost completely part time work force, and with thier newest scheduling system where workers do not have a set schedule, (computers try to calculate the most efficient way to schedule everyone, based on date, time, etc. regardless of worker's availability) where its almost impossible to have a second job or go to school and break the poverty cycle. This goes back to my first point, where again, unlike every other corporation in the US, Wal-Mart has gotten so much control over thier own labor supply that their workers have NO CHOICE but to be on as much public assistance as possible. Unlike every other corporation in the US, Wal-Mart NEEDS these taxpayer-funded social welfare programs to maintain current labor costs, levels of profit and growth. Sorry for the long rant, but I can only take so much "let the invisible hand of the market guide us all to salvation" before I lose it. My apologies, I did not mean to offend anyone. | ||
3rdworldcity Member Username: 3rdworldcity Post Number: 466 Registered: 01-2005 |
Very Interesting thread. Particularly so because of the big gap between the knowledgeable and intellectually honest posters and those that aren't. I became fascinated with Wal-Mart as a business quite a while ago. I've read a couple of the books referenced here, among others. I'm not now nor have I ever been a shareholder or employee. We spend about $7-8,000 a year at Costco, and maybe $500 at Wal-Mart. I find Wal-Mart stores here dingy and unpleasant. I'm not as price-driven as many. But I believe that for anyone to understand how businesses will be conducted in the future they must study Wal-Mart now. A must-read is "The Wal-Mart Effect: How The World's Most Powerful Company Really Works - And How It's Transforming The American Economy." (Should be "worlds economy.") It's written by a responsible journalist, Charles Fishman, and has been lauded by most responsible critics and has been a best seller. Published by Penguin in 2006 and paperback this year. About $15 in paperback. I'm reading it for the second time; it's a page turner for anyone interested in business, or how the world works. Americans spend $36 million dollars EVERY HOUR at Wal-Mart, 24 hour a day, 36 days a year. That's just in the U.S. Not one dollar spent at gunpoint. According to Johnlodge, it's "profits are high enough." Typical comment by someone who has no idea what he's talking about. Wal-Mart's total profit per year per employee was in '04 $6,400; Microsoft's was $200,000 per year per employee. W-M's TOTAL PROFIT per employee per HOUR is about $3.00. That includes all the managers and executives. It can't afford to pay it's employees more and still deliver its customers the low prices they DEPEND on. There have been economic and sociological studies of Wal-Mart going back to 1984. Every topic discussed so far on this forum, and hundreds more, have been analyzed to death; according to most peer reviews many are seriously flawed, one of the reasons being that W-M does not cooperate with researchers, deeming most everything about the company not required to be divulged by the SEC as proprietary. The Wal-Mart Effect documents many of these studies thoroughly. The author included 20 pages of small print "source notes," sourced by page to names of interviewees, studies etc. The book is very thoroughly indexed. Mikeg referred to some posters as being "economically illiterate." Many might think he's referring to Christos, but I don't. I think Christos, who claims to "have worked in retail," may have been fired from W-M. (I know that's an unfair statement). Or, he works for Meijer's or is a disgruntled union organizer. I do know he's intellectually dishonest. He has fabricated many allegations he makes against the company. His views go beyond honest criticism to slander. JT1 doesn't like W-M but is objective. His may be more of a typical view. A large market research/advertising firm independently made a comprehensive study of customer attitudes toward W-M in OK City a couple of years ago. Every W-M branded store is represented in the area. The study showed that the majority of W-M customers had a negative attitude toward the company. However, those with the most negative attitude shopped there more frequently and their monthly purchases were the highest of all groups surveyed. Go figure. Danny, read The Wal-Mart Effect and see if your attitude changes a bit, not that you'll like the company more, but you'll have a better idea as to whether to like or not like the it. You will become more objective. Thejesus; right as usual. One very interesting point. One University study, which took several years, and analyzed a large number of economic factors in every county in the country in which W-M does business using data prior to it commencement of business and after, clearly documented W-M's economic impact. Sure, large numbers of businesses folded because they couldn't compete. But it's most interesting to note that in the many areas where W-M essentially has no competition, it NEVER raised it's prices to take advantage of its dominance. Instead, it inexorably continued it's practice of relentlessly, compulsively, reducing prices every year by every means possible. Proctor and Gamble sales are around $70 billion per year. W-M is biggest customer, accounting for about 30% of P&G volume. P&G maintains 220 permanent employees in Bentonville who deal solely w/ W-M. If W-B stopped buying from P&G it might put it under. Failing to be able to sell P&G products would be an annoyance to W-M. W-M's success has much to do w/ controlling its costs and therefore to needs to have tremendous control over its suppliers. It does, and that's a key part in the book -- how it acquires that dominance. To suppliers: "cut our prices 5% per year or sell to someone else. Finding a way to do it is your problem." My paraphrasing. "The Wal-Mart Effect" is a book deemed critical of W-M by it reviewers and the company. It probably is. But, it's very objective and FAIR. The author gives the devil its due. That's why I'm reading it for the second time. I feel I owe it to myself, as a businessperson, to understand how business will be conducted in the future by companies which intend survive. If you're in retailing (I'm not) you owe it to yourself to read it ten times. I guaranty you everyone a Meijers has. And, if and when W-M targets (no pun intended) Meijers, Meijers will not survive unless it changes dramatically, and then it will end up a much smaller company. And, W-M sells more before March 15th every year than Target sells all year. Success in business is all about cutting costs. That's always been true, but more so now in a global economy. GM, Ford and Chrysler paid lip service to the concept but never really put the idea in practice, and when it did it was to raise its short term profits in order to overpay it executives and it's employees. C ut car prices? Get serious.That's why they are firing (by whatever process) huge numbers of their employees and are insolvent. Had Sam Walton started the Ford Motor Company it would have at least 50% of the auto market today (guess) and it would be hiring employees today instead of firing them and living on the Bankruptcy courthouse steps. Pop quiz in a couple of days. | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 325 Registered: 02-2006 |
If Wal-Mart or any retail business wanted to set up shop in Detroit Kwame and the City Council should pucker up and get read to kiss some ass because they can't afford to be picky. I am also tired of the argument that Wal-Mart killed the mom and pop shops of your youth. That is totally NOT TRUE!!! YOU killed them by not going there anymore. We all love the thought of small business in America until it comes time to buy something and we want the lowest price. | ||
Rogerjab Member Username: Rogerjab Post Number: 13 Registered: 06-2005 |
Just what we need in this area more cheap Chinese crap...Costco in Detroit,Yes...they pay their workers. Walmart does nothing but fund China to ruin this country economically in the coming China wars. Detroit gets blamed for enough, we don't need Chinamart to help. You want Walmart, go get a job in Beijing. The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought and How They Can Be Won by Peter Navarro (Hardcover - Oct 19, 2006) | ||
Rogerjab Member Username: Rogerjab Post Number: 14 Registered: 06-2005 |
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi kipedia/en/4/4d/Walmartbizarro .png | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4876 Registered: 11-2003 |
Christo #54, one of the best on The Forum in a long time. The arguments are clear, concise, crisp. Thanks. jjaba. | ||
Fastcarsfreedom Member Username: Fastcarsfreedom Post Number: 133 Registered: 11-2005 |
The discussion here is fantastic. 3rdworldcity, you deserve credit for your balanced response and for calling out the biases of many of the posters here. I certainly admit that I, like everyone else here, has a bias. In response to Christos, it may be that your sources are "accurate"--but I can assure you they are no more "accurate" than any response you'd receive from Bentonville if you asked them for some information regarding their corporation's business practices. To be quite frank, if Wal*Mart seeks incentives and abatements as part of it's store development process, it is the politicians we are all responsible for electing who grant these--and if government's are willing to subsidize the growth of private business--how do you hold a company at fault for taking advantage of it--afterall it builds shareholder value which is the reason businesses exist in the first place. Everything from auto plants to airline service is subsidized and abated in this age--government's pay up for training programs, infrastructure development, tax breaks, etc. Clearly this is because these politicians (and their constituents) place value on the jobs and revenue these businesses bring to their respective communities. 3rdworldcity also astutely points out that Wal*Mart has not engaged in price gouging in markets where it is, or has become, the lone mass-merchandise retailer. Discounting is in the fabric of the company's culture, and reading Walton's autobiography Made In America will make this clear. Personally I hope Meijer, Target, Kmart and everyone else sticks around and prospers-creating employment just like Wal*Mart. Meijer has made a concerted effort to spruce itself up, expand and get control of it's costs--and by all accounts it isn't suffering Wal*Mart's entry into SE Michigan all that severely. Target has managed to find itself a niche of sorts also, but it's running up against the same low growth issues that Wal*Mart is, and Target will soon be looking to grow internationally. Kmart never took Wal*Mart seriously, and the company, as a corporate entity, is gone. I drove down Coolidge yesterday and marvelled at that huge, vacant corporate campus--the lights were all on--nothing but empty space. Every dog, alas, has his day. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6353 Registered: 09-2005 |
Perhaps the reason both Meijer & Walmart haven't opened in the COD has to do with the downfall of Hudsons. Other major cities have been able to sustain a large department store in their city core - but Hudsons went from one gargantuan giant to a landfill. In the later years, the cops lined up outside to haul off the shoplifters. Maybe Meijer & Walmart simply don't want to deal with the added security that comes with doing business in Detroit. The idea that Walmart INSISTS on tax subsidies is silly. It is a 2-way street with the American public on both sides. Cities have realized (right or wrong) that having a Walmart might be beneficial in a # of ways, and compete (a novel idea on these threads) to have one built within their city limits. Walmart does not force its way into anywhere, and will take its business elsewhere if they feel they're not wanted (Chicago is currently smarting as their tiny neighboring suburb figures out what to do with $1M++ sales tax revenue) We all know Detroit will do the bidding of its citizens and bar the door. Hence Walmart will go to Detroit's ignorant, ghetto, riot-torn neighbor Dearborn and build its next store, allowing Dearborn to collect that sinful sales tax revenue, while Detroit flourishes on clean, steady, family-oriented casino money. | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1717 Registered: 06-2004 |
quote: sorry, Karl, but virtually all sales tax collected in the US goes to each state's treasury for redistribution and Wal*Mart has been known to sue cities and zoning boards when they get denied what they want | ||
Eric_w Member Username: Eric_w Post Number: 30 Registered: 02-2007 |
Well Kmart couldn't make a go of it on 7 mile due to high theft losses.Same reason there are damn few grocery chains too.They'll sell goods but theft kills them profit wise. To paraphrase my dear deceased old dad-I'd rather go to a dog fight than set foot in a Wal Mart. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4880 Registered: 11-2003 |
Karl, what's your issue with Dearborn? Wow, you unloaded a zinger on them. Maybe Wal-Mart gave their City Council $25 worth of store brand peanut butter and six packs of assorted Romanian jellies. Sounds like you sat on some kind of burr under your saddle. jjaba, Western Sider. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1231 Registered: 02-2004 |
I don't think Karl knows what he's talking about (stop giggling, everyone). Or did we all miss the huge Dearborn riots? | ||
Lilpup Member Username: Lilpup Post Number: 1720 Registered: 06-2004 |
3rdworldcity, You think driving American workers' wages down instead of forcing other countries' workers' standard of living up is the way to go? | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4883 Registered: 11-2003 |
Oreck Vacuum Cleaners announced they just couldn't cope with its losses from Hurricane Katrina in S. Mississippi and have moved to Tennessee. They are an old New Orleans Jewish family. A central problem for them is availability of cheap labor. With few houses, workers available want 20% more than the $5.15 an/hr. they were being paid. Proudly, American, they moved to cheaper labor in Tennessee. This is the state of American manufacturing in a nutshell. The family are given awards for their patriotism and move for cheaper wages. Evidently, dental care is not such an issue in Tennessee either. jjaba, confused as hell. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1019 Registered: 04-2006 |
The only reason why Walmart is going to Dearborn is they have a store they can move into immediately... the old Super K. Thats a no brainer if you ask me. Would you rather see them build a store in Hermann Gardens while the one in Dearborn stays empty? I'm a big fan of filling what is already on the ground before building new. | ||
Gibran Member Username: Gibran Post Number: 10 Registered: 02-2007 |
I have been a critic of Walmart...they may hurt small towns or maybe that is an urban myth since they are being sought to come into a lot of areas that need development now,and they surely use products made in China...But I don't see anyone racing to capture the needs in the inner cities...many workplaces that are run by mom and pop don't pay better than Walmart, they can't afford any benefits, and they certainly don't hire or give people with disabilities a higher income working part time than surviving JUST off of ssdi. They also can bring in support business around the area that can increase the quality of living for those around there...How hard is it for people to travel outside their area to buy basic goods? Walmart while helping China and others (who doesn't anymore, our government sure does its part to help China) can bring life into areas long forgotten by the chains that used call the area home. If we really want to level playing field increase a tariff on imported goods like we used to have in the early part of the last century....but then you would see people yelling about increases in prices...so in the meantime while we try to fix our blighted cities...this could help a little. people working from the inside can demand more than not having the opportunity in the first place. Change can come from within and really I know crime is higher, but maybe people wanting a better life in the area will rise to the occasion, well it could happen..:} | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 327 Registered: 07-2006 |
Karl, despite his nonsensical babbling about Hudsons, sales tax revenue and Dearborn riots, actually does have a good point hidden in there. I have heard that if a Walmart is coming to your area, it is better to be the town it is built in than the town next to the town its built in. It tends to attract retail to its immediate vicinity, but that which is further away tends to suffer. So which does Detroit want to be? Should Detroit residents have to go to Dearborn or another suburb to go to Walmart? (and they WILL go to walmart, like it or not, personal finances will win out over principles the majority of the time). I would figure you'd rather keep that money in Detroit, employing Detroiters, and benefiting them with the low prices they offer without the added expense of gas (or bus fares, or whatever) to get to the suburbs. crap, i just realized i'm actually defending walmart. now i hate myself. (Message edited by scottr on February 24, 2007) | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6357 Registered: 09-2005 |
First, has it dawned on anyone here that 100 years ago, Hudsons was a local version of Walmart? How many folks couldn't compete with Hudsons? Then there was Woolworth - Same thing on a national level. Never heard a peep against 'em here. Sorry most of you hate progress, that's the way it is. Had you invested in their stock you'd be singing a different tune. Your granny's pension is probably solvent (or more so) because of Walmart. Jjaba, sorry. I guess I must alert everyone if I toss some sarcasm in my post - yeesh.... Detroit, may I suggest a Walmart would be good for ya. | ||
Chitaku Member Username: Chitaku Post Number: 1193 Registered: 03-2006 |
Hudsons sold American made goods 100 years ago. Karl you are a fool. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 328 Registered: 07-2006 |
Karl, just because it sells everything, does not make it a local version of Walmart. Hudson's was a high end department store. Walmart is a discount store. Different customers, different merchandise. It's like comparing a Kia to a Cadillac. So far as calling it progress, that's your opinion. I find this trend disturbing, myself. Unfortunately, I see little alternative. | ||
Wsugrad Member Username: Wsugrad Post Number: 14 Registered: 08-2006 |
quote from Karl: "sorry most of you hate progress" what a dumb thing to write. i hate cheap crap made in china/mongolia/india/thailand/ korea where workers are exploited there so more workers can be exploited here. is that what you call "progress"? | ||
Schoolcraft Member Username: Schoolcraft Post Number: 103 Registered: 07-2005 |
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17 276629/ Except what about US jobs out sourced to India? ..and everywhere else? On a macro level,redistribution of global wealth is occurring....though with flaws as always.... worldwide in global economy. Rightfully so.A billion people still live in poverty, however, the number is going.....DOWN..Yes DOWN..ie Globalization works! Globalization(like Wal-Mart) is not labor cost driven though.Its consumer price driven. Wal-Mart sees this. That was/is the big flaw of communism and socialism. You can't force redistribution of wealth as governments fail miserably at trying to do.The global capitalist consumer will do it...just takes longer...Capitalism is the worst. All the rest are worser...and the more our world economy is intertwined the less we fight about(ie; Trade Wars instead of Military Wars) Marx is dead. Let him be dead! 7 Wal-Marts for Detroit! | ||
Planner_727 Member Username: Planner_727 Post Number: 89 Registered: 07-2006 |
Great posts and discussion! Schoolcraft, great points. A few reading materials I have on my office shelf (will add references monday) dicuss this phenomenon: "Going Local" "Globalization: Local Phenomenon" The idea of globalization is intriguing in it's potential effect on America. NYC already experiencing this problem of severe gentrification and elimination of the middle class. The service industry employs for the most part two classes of people being the service laborers and the management. The gap between these groups is essential what the manufacturing base used to comprise. THe same types of white-collar jobs/management positions are available and pay upper-middle class wages. Unfortunately, the wages paid to the lower level workers is lower class. What is missing is the middle class; which used to offer a logical progression and avenue for class advancement. With the loss of the middle class, you're either lower or upper with few prospects for change. On another note, my habits strongly parallel those of 3rdworld... I spend a good deal of money each year at Costco, and a small amount at WalMart... usually when I need something specific and they carry it (most recent example is kid bike seat for my bike--Costco and Meijer didn't even have a decent one). Currently, people who live in the CIty have to find a Meijer or Walmart or whatever in a neighborhing city to shop at. A WalMart wouldn't kill any Detroit local stores, because there really aren't any (realize that there are 900,000 people without a single big box!)! THe second SMART pulled out of Livonia, DDOT beefed up routes and even built a new 'stop' with a permanent bench and sign in the Millenium Park at Middlebelt and I-96 (Meijer, Costco, Walmart across the street, Home Depot, etc). Local shopping markets experience the same types of problems that are allegedly keeping the big boxes out (crime, theft, vandalism, etc), but with less fortitude to survive the damage they cause. Whether or not it is a Wal-Mart is a separate issue from the need for affordable, accessible retail and retail jobs in the City. One issues that I'm willing to debate is the morals and ethics of WalMart versus other retailers. The lack of convenient, accessible, competitive retail in the City is a problem that must be addressed. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6359 Registered: 09-2005 |
Chitaku, Scottr, Wsugrad, others: Hudsons was a form of Walmart in its day - everything under one roof, reasonably priced goods from all over the world (I suppose you thought their Persian rugs were made in Toledo?) and yes, some cheap items. Further, there were businesses who couldn't compete with Hudsons and either went under or never opened in the first place. Still doubting? Whatever Hudsons didn't carry cheaply enough from foreign countries, Woolworth did - why do you think they called them 5 & 10's? Nickels & dimes bought many of their items. Do you really believe they just created markets, selling goods no one else sold? No. They just allowed more folks to buy for cheaper prices. Just like Walmart. No one made a fortune working there - but the owners became extremely wealthy. And no one is forced to go to Hudsons, Woolworths or Walmart. Put one in Detroit, rather than dictating to keep one out, and let the people decide. | ||
Schoolcraft Member Username: Schoolcraft Post Number: 104 Registered: 07-2005 |
Yes, and funny how Bill Clinton gets it also. Clinton=NAFTA. Anyhow, WalMart isnt the greatest though they are damn good. However, I went to buy some camouflage trousers there the other day and couldnt find any.Darn. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1234 Registered: 02-2004 |
Hudsons was never a form of WalMart in its day. Never. Bad analogy. Stop being so stupid. | ||
Christos Member Username: Christos Post Number: 56 Registered: 12-2006 |
Great posts everyone! Though I do feel the need to defend myself quite a bit. 3rdworldcity: I dont think that my "claims" to "have worked in retail" are any wild, crazy alligation that you imply may or may not be true. Retail is the largest sector in our economy, and most people work in that sector at least some point in thier life. If you must know, I used to work at Borders. I was a register jockey at the store in Taylor for a while, then I was the inventory supervisor in Brighton for some time. If you need further proof, uh, well I guess you could call the stores and ask if they had a "Christos" on thier staff in the last five years or something (its not that common of a name, TRUST ME), I dont know how else to prove it to you. Anyways, you do make some severe accusations at me, beginning with me being "intellectually dishonest," and going so far as accusing me of slander. Slander is illegal, and while I'm not an attorney, I dont think any of what I have said is against the law. If it is, than I am in trouble because I have said all of these things in testimony in front of the Michigan House Commerce committee (then controled by Repubs), and in front of Wal-Mart's representation and have not been arrested, accused of slander, etc. Then again, maybe you know something they dont, I don't know. As far as intellectual dishonesty I will admit, I am biased as I DO in fact work for a union. I know that I have mentioned it on this board in the past or at least have elluded to it. I hope if you are not offended by my discomfort in giving out TOO MUCH information about where I work, but since you brought it up I feel compelled to tell. While I am biased against Wal-Mart, however, I don't think I am dishonest. I am presenting one side of an argument. Others present other sides of an argument. This is not a black and white issue, as there are many shades of gray- many of which are being represented in this discussion. Just because our shades are different does not mean that you or I are more right than the other. Regardless, you made some very good points, and I am interested in the book you mentioned. Thank you for that. Jjaba: Thanks man, I appreciate that! Its true that wakeupwalmart.com might present of set of fact whereas walmartfacts.com (Wal-Marts own website that is a responce to wakeupwalmart.com and walmartwatch.com) might present a different set of facts. What I often find is that these "facts" are not often in contradiction, but merely set up to frame the company in a positive or negative light. For example walmartwatch.com might say something like "World's Largest Company Facing Nation's Largest Workplace-Bias Lawsuit." Walmartfacts.com will not say that its not true that they are facing the nation's largest workplace bias suit, but say something like "Wal-Mart's aggressive mandate to improve its image and get credit for politically correct policies continues." I dunno, maybe thats not the best example, but I think you get my point. My other point is, many of the studies on wakeupwalmart.com are directly from scholarly journals. Scholarly journals exist to share research, and subject such research to peer review and criticism. All I'm saying is that saying that a study is bogus (which I'm not accusing you of doing, just clearing up my previous post), simply because one does not like the position of the web portal that links the study is NOT, imo, a valid criticism of the research. I do agree with you though that Wal-Mart is not to blame for thier government handouts. I *DO* blame the politicians, and have publicly done so on many occasions. The argument was made that the only way to stop Wal-Mart is to "vote with your dollars," but my point is one needs to do more than that and vote with thier- well vote (assuming this is a "make or break" issue for you, which for many it probably isn't). While government subsidizing industry is a whole different discussion all together, I do not like the idea that MY tax dollars are going in the pockets of Wal-Mart shareholders. My question is, why do so called "hard-line capitalists" give Wal-Mart a pass when they rely so heavily on public assistance? Whenever I talk to conservatives or self described "economic libertarians" about how well Wal-Mart manipulates the system, the responce I get from them is "GOOD FOR THEM!" I don't get it. This brings up two other points. First, people talk about how great of a business model Wal-Mart is, but also mention how they cannot sustain themself if they paid the level of wages and benefits that thier competitors did. Why is it companies like Meijer and Kroger can pay good wages and provide good health care and pensions but Wal-Mart cannot? Furthermore, how can you call that a model of efficiency? While I do not shop at Wal-Mart, I assume that the prices are competitive, otherwise Meijer and Kroger would be out of business. My other point is in a capitalist economy, firms are supposed to act as price takers, and sell goods at the market price which is determined by an intersection in supply and demand curves. The fact that Wal-Mart can TELL thier suppliers "you NEED to cut this price" suggests that they have become too powerful and do not behave in a way that is healthy to the free market. Remember, what separates capitalism from communism is that in capitalism goods, services, and labor are bought and sold on an open and free market, where the price is set by an intersection by a supply curve and a demand curve. In communism, goods, services, and labor are bought and sold on a market where prices are determined by an outside force (usually and institution like the government, where the government and industry are one entity). Which model better suits Wal-Mart? | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 329 Registered: 07-2006 |
Karl, do you actually know anything about retail? Having everything under one roof? Common to any large department store. Reasonably priced goods? They're really not even in the same category. Walmart sells things for the absolute cheapest possible, cutting costs where they can to provide that price. Hudson's does not. all over the world? Getting a luxury item from the place it originated (like a Persian rug) is a far cry from sourcing goods from the place with the cheapest labor costs. Also keep in mind, shipping something around the world back then was far more difficult and expensive than today. Going to that extent was considered a sign of luxury. A comparison to Woolworth in the first place would have made far more sense. How about you stick to that one? | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 330 Registered: 07-2006 |
quote: Just curious, does anyone have any info on average wages at Kroger's and Meijer's? (walmart = $9.68/hr) It would be nice to have some hard data on the subject. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1022 Registered: 04-2006 |
Scott, if you went to Hudson's back in the 1970's or earlier you would be familiar with the fact that they used to have a ton more departments that they have now, including a budget store known as the Rainbow Store. I can recall departments such as records, sewing, stamps and coins, books, barber shops, appliances, and of course toys that were all in Hudson's. Karl is speaking historically. In the old days Hudson's had the biggest stores (like Walmart) in locations on the buslines. Walmart uses a relatively similar strategy, but forces everyone who shops there to pay for a portion of the delivery of the goods through longer drives to their superstores. Hudson's used to have warehouses that they would deliver goods from directly to the persons house, because you can't bring a refrigerator with you on the streetcar/bus! Today's big boxes almost force everyone who wants to shop at them to buy a pickup and cover the cost of delivery to the final location. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 331 Registered: 07-2006 |
I'm well aware that there were more departments, but like most large department stores, they have cut back over the years, mostly due to losing sales to both specialty stores (like best buy) or superstores (walmart). But even with a 'budget store', having a lot of departments does not make it the equivalent of Walmart. Store location really isn't a good means of comparison either. Putting them near bus lines is a good business practice in the first place for a business that requires a large number of customers to stay in business. Certainly not unique to Walmart or Hudson's. But that still wasn't 100 years ago like Karl is speaking of, before even the downtown store existed. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1237 Registered: 02-2004 |
Hudsons was never like a Woolworth or a WalMart. It was always higher end goods, like Marshall Fields or Lord and Taylor. The fact that they were both stores with many departments on one roof is not close enough. | ||
Sticks Member Username: Sticks Post Number: 225 Registered: 08-2005 |
One of the best threads on the board by far. Hasn't devolved into a shit-flinging fest yet. As I believe one other person brought up, who exactly would WM compete with if they were to build in the city? The dollar stores which seem to be popping up left and right? Hardly. Instead of going out to the burbs to save a whole quarter on a pack of socks, they can stay right here in Detroit. It also took awhile but someone brought up the fact that WM essentially tells their suppliers to cut your cost or don't sell your stuff here. When a company (such as P&G or Hanes or Vlassic) has a large portion of their income relying on just WM, shouldn't that be the signal of something bad? Either poor planning on the suppliers side or the buyer becoming too large when they can set the rules. quote: You're right. But the thousands of people that shop WM means that they probably aren't shopping at the stores I prefer to frequent. And if the stores I frequent aren't getting business because of all the WM shoppers, then it affects me. quote: Jjaba, so let's assume that the average consumer spends $5340 per year on groceries. That's about $103 per week, which doesn't seem unreasonable. You're telling me that it's possible to go from spending $103 to $55 a week simply by shopping at WM? That does seem like a bit of a stretch. Does that include altering shopping habits? Buying less or buying in bulk and wasting the rest? Buying generic brands compared to national brands? quote: That seems a little high. When I left retail about a year ago, I was making $9 an hour, a dollar of which was due to working after hours as a stock employee. Even still, I was making more than any other floor person there when I went to days. And besides, median would be more accurate of an indicator as it's less sensitive to outliers. Let's keep the good posts coming, all. | ||
Christos Member Username: Christos Post Number: 57 Registered: 12-2006 |
Its hard to gage average wages. A lot of times when Wal-Mart gives average wages they include management, other skilled jobs, etc. For example, Wal-Mart might claim that thier average wage is like $9-10 an hour, but a Business Week story claimed the average wage for a "sales associate" is $8.23 and another study claimed the average wage of a cashier is $7.92. I know Kroger's STARTING wage is $7.00 or $7.50, and top wages for cashiers are around $13 and hour, while department heads get up to $18 an hour. There was a study done a while back in Detroit, and I'm totally just going from memory, but I think the average wage at Kroger and Farmer Jack (before Farmer Jack workers too concession votes) including health care, pension, etc. was about $19/hour, and Meijer was about $15/hour, where Wal-Marts was under $10. Don't cite me on these numbers, as they are just from memory and this is just for the Detroit area. Costco was about $15/an hour too. Also keep in mind that to be "full time" at Wal-Mart means a weekly gaurentee of 27 hours (at Kroger its 40 and Meijer, I wanna say 35). | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4889 Registered: 11-2003 |
The savings of $2,500 per family at Wal-Mart refers to all purchases, not simply groceries. So include items like socks, underwear, coats, caps, shoes, gloves, and boots. Include your I-pods, your tv specials, glue and a hammer. Soap, toilet paper, and school supplies. Chirstmas presents. comapred to the other big boxes in any marketplace across USA. You save even more if your stores are locals, not chains. Shop-floor wages would include a lot of folks. Christos makes his case that the other big boxes are more generous, thus have a better reputation. This is jjaba's point too. jjaba is sticking with $10.21 average wage at Wal-Mart and sticking to his broader assertion that the same labor pool in manufacturing, clerical, sales, distribution, etc. are pegging wages to match Wal-Mart. Where before, employers looked to GE, GM, Ford, ATT, and the railroads or airlines, now they look to Wal-Mart for informal guidance. Put another way, you only have to pay like Wal-Mart. You only have to give benefits, time off, breaks, and insurances equal to Wal-Mart. Labor demanding more than Wal-Mart wages finds factories packing up for Mexico, Malasia, Philippines, China, Taiwan, and Honduras. Try to buy a USA-made tv, camera, or even a stinky pair of sneakers. Sadly, even Mexican workers demanded too much and factories are moving South of there. 50 yrs. ago we called that a Runaway Shop, now we call it off-shoring. jjaba, tells it like it tis. | ||
Christos Member Username: Christos Post Number: 58 Registered: 12-2006 |
Nicely put jjaba! | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1244 Registered: 02-2004 |
WalMart low wages guarantees that their workers are fully in debt to the company store. It's another big part of their vicious cycle. | ||
Detroitplanner Member Username: Detroitplanner Post Number: 1023 Registered: 04-2006 |
Walmart would compete with all of the Family Dollars! Only difference is that each Family Dollar Store would draw from a smaller market area. Family Dollar Stores are located in areas walkable to their market. Walmart? 'Not so much' - Borat | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6361 Registered: 09-2005 |
The flood of cheap labor into the market (mostly from Mexico) along with ambivalence toward the problem (legalize them? no wall? little border enforcement?) contributes to the problem. Just like these workers are willing to work far cheaper in Mexico than workers are paid here, they will work at Walmart (and be happy consumers of their goods) Can't have it both ways, folks. Someone finally conceded that even if Hudsons wasn't comparable to Walmart, Woolworths might be. I'm sure the ORF's of the day whined about "their vicious cycle" but they still came and went. Cycles generally run with consumer taste - not activism. I suggest you figure out the next fad in consumerism and jump on. Somehow I don't think it will be shopping at stores with higher prices - or unions. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6362 Registered: 09-2005 |
Speaking of unions, benefits and wages, perhaps someone should discuss what all 3 situations were at Hudsons - especially since for some reason they're no longer around. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 1246 Registered: 02-2004 |
You can't blame Mexican labor for our economic problems, now matter how hard you try, Karl. Nice way to bring your personal racist beliefs into it. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8388 Registered: 10-2003 |
3rd - You're not implying that I would go to Wal Mart are you? I certainly will not spend a penny there but I think that given the options of Detroiters spending the money outside the city or insode the city at a Walmart the latter is a better option. My dollars will never go there. | ||
Mikeg Member Username: Mikeg Post Number: 624 Registered: 12-2005 |
Caution - this thread contains a lot of opinions that are not supported by facts. Where did that full time 27 hours per week figure come from? Do any of you even know someone who works for Wal-Mart or have you ever talked to one? The full-timers that I know get at least 35 hours per week. The only valid criticism I've read here and also heard from Wal-Mart employees concerns their scheduling system, which does make it impossible to hold a second job. What makes you think that all - or even a majority - of the Wal-Mart workers are the sole breadwinner in their family? Have you ever asked a Wal-Mart employee if they feel like they are underpaid or "fully in debt to the company store" - or is that just one of the union talking points? | ||
Cambrian Member Username: Cambrian Post Number: 672 Registered: 08-2006 |
Karl, great topic, illegal mexican immigrants crossing the US border seeking work. Before NAFTA there was the Border Industries Program of 1965. Mexico opened up its arms to American Companies allowing them to build factories along US borders to allow these firms to take advantage of that cheap Mexican labor. The people running the factories soon found out women were preferred to the men workers. They had children at home to support and were far less likely to complain about low pay and inhumane working conditions. The ratio in a Mexican Factory or Maquilidora is about 80 women to 20 men. Consumers get the benefit of cheaper products assembled by Mexicans, this is a good thing right? Well not really. Millions more people migrate north to seek work in Maquilidoras, but are turned away by the frugal factory owners. They are all ready at the border, so they go ahead and enter the US. That's right, the need of companies to exploit that cheap labor, actually indirectly causes more illegal immigration. It was projected that the population of Mexico City was to hit 25 million in the 90s, it is now about 18 million. Why did the City's population not follow trends expected by the demographers? Because of all that growth headed to the factory towns along the border and beyond it. (Message edited by cambrian on February 25, 2007) | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 332 Registered: 07-2006 |
Karl, How many illegal immigrants work at Walmart? Seriously, give me facts, not theories. And if it's such a problem, why hasn't your wall and the millions we've thrown at border patrol produced any results? Oh, yeah... it's my 'ambivalance'. I forgot that my acknowledgement that your plan not only is not working, but makes the problem worse, is the entire reason it's not working in the first place. And what does it have to do with Walmart in Detroit? Are you afraid the Canadians might start flooding the border? Or are you afraid that Walmart might send truckloads of illegal Mexicans up here to man stores in Detroit? Also, I conceded nothing, your Hudson's argument was ill-founded and absolutely ridiculous. Since you can't admit being wrong, you flailed around until you found Woolworth's to hold on to. You finally realized that perhaps comparing a five and dime to a discount store was more appropriate than Hudsons. Changing the focus does not make your original argument any more correct. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6363 Registered: 09-2005 |
Sorry Scottr, I thought you were smarter than this. I skipped the step that illegals here sometimes become legal - and THEN work at Walmart. Nonetheless, there are many illegals that shop there, as well as many upper and lower middle class folks. Pssst - alot of frugal wealthy folks shop there too, they just keep it quiet. Meanwhile, the red ink flows and losses mount as Jt1 spends his money elsewhere - stockholders are worried! I think I mentioned Woolworths early on. Regardless, Detroiters would do well to encourage mainstream development in the city, Lord knows enough has left and further billions have passed Detroit by. Progress & time march on, Detroit stands still - and the lack of a Walmart (of all things) proves it. As far as conceding arguments, I could care less whether you do or not, or whether you think I'm right or not. I've expressed my POV, take it or leave it. | ||
Scottr Member Username: Scottr Post Number: 333 Registered: 07-2006 |
Explain to me how you place a lower status on those who immigrants who were illegal but then became legal. Or did you forget that this country was founded by immigrants, legal and illegal? I will agree that eventually walmart will come, and at this point, would probably be wise to welcome it. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6364 Registered: 09-2005 |
Poor Detroit - The other day I was reading another thread dealing with Detroit real estate and came across the S. S. Kresge home, I think in Boston/Edison. Obviously Detroit benefited from yet another brilliant retail innovator in the past, now long gone. Wonder if Detroiters worried about what small mom & pop Kresge was putting out of biz? Sometimes these threads seem incredibly hypocritical. I wonder what the tune here would be if somehow Sam Walton had been born poor in Detroit and developed his empire from here instead of Arkansas? What if Detroit was reaping billions instead of elsewhere? I'm amazed at the audacity of some folks on these threads to spit upon concepts they don't like, including their former employers who provide them excellent pension/retirement benefits. As the city crumbles, some spit upon newer and more innovative ideas. Walmart wants to open an above-board, proven operation here that would truly benefit those living in Detroit. Even Jjaba whines. Yet, where do Jjaba and others condemn the one-sided extortion of money from the city by casinos - and Detroit now has THREE? About half of ya make me tired. | ||
Christos Member Username: Christos Post Number: 59 Registered: 12-2006 |
When Wal-Mart was busted for hiring illegals, they were not "associates" who were employees of the companies, but contracted to do the cleaning when the store was closed. No company would be that foolish as to hire illegals that are in the public eye. One thing I have noticed about this forum. When you challenge one's beliefs, some forumers rather than even think for one moment that they might be wrong about something prefer to think that: 1) the person posting the information has no idea what they are talking about and is "crazy" or, 2) insist on having every single shred of info that challenges their ideology scrutinized and sourced. And of course the only sources that matter are ones that verify your ideology. Before anyone gets too defensive, I'm just as guilty of this as anyone, just making a point. When I was at UM, I came the conclusion that everyone decides they have learned everything they need to learn by age 20 (give or take a few years) and then spend the rest of thier lives trying to reenforce everything they already know. This goes for people on the left as well as the right. Just and observation. Incidently, the best source on working conditions at Wal-Mart not run by a union, I find is from the Wal-Mart Workers Association. http://www.walmartwork.org/ Its neither hosted by a union (even though I do think the research behind UFCW's wakeupwalmart.com is solid and thorough) or any corporation, but ACORN which is a grassroots anti-poverty organization. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8389 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: What is your point Karl. I know that I won't make a difference to their bottom line but I do shop with my conscience. I don't like WalMart's business practices and a will not shop their based upon my beliefs. I am not telling others not to shop there. Why does the idea of shopping and spending with a conscience seem to bother you when my comments had nothing to do with you? Keep working through your golden years. Maybe saving a few bucks at WalMart might get you to your retirement. At your age you have to save everything you can. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6365 Registered: 09-2005 |
^ ^ ^ Too funny, and totally clueless ^ ^ ^ But do keep trying! | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 8390 Registered: 10-2003 |
How so? Instead of laughing why not engage in a real dialogue. (Message edited by jt1 on February 25, 2007) | ||
321brian Member Username: 321brian Post Number: 326 Registered: 02-2006 |
Why is Wal-Mart always the bad guy? I don't shop there much but as far as I know nobody makes people work there and nobody makes people shop there. I think a problem a lot of Americans and people in Michigan have is that we expect too much from our employers. Usually more than deserved. We give them a days work and they pays us for it. Then repeat. Anyone can opt out at any time. | ||
Checkered_past Member Username: Checkered_past Post Number: 3 Registered: 02-2007 |
Dosen't Wal-Mart CREATE economically distressed areas wherever they open.....Hmmm. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4893 Registered: 11-2003 |
Karl, we were doing fine about Wal-Mart and then you throw out Casinos, and start dissing jjaba. jjaba would be glad to discuss casinos on another thread except he is curious, do they pay $10.21 an hr. for shop-floor wages too? I'd suspect that dealers and servers get plenty of tips so wages might be less important. Just curious. jjaba is 100% negative about casinos. They are a dsigusting income redistribution scheme for the stockholders and those who tax them. Steal from the customers who can least afford it, and laugh all the way to the bank, while Govt. enjoys the collections. jjaba. | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 212 Registered: 12-2006 |
Wal Mart is the latest in a string of companies that use the economic and legal structure to the maximum benefit of their stockholders. They are not the first and they certainly won't be the last. Someone posted, quite a number of posts ago, that Wal Mart does not play by the rules in so far as they violate laws knowingly and regularly. If they are aware that the cost of playing by the rules would exceed the cost of the penalties for not doing so, and make decisions based on that knowledge, they are in fact "playing by the rules". The rules need to change in such a situation. Remember, Wal Mart, like every other corporation in the US, is trying to maximize the benefits to their stockholders, and nobody else. If you think Wal Mart is evil, then you have to admit our regulatory and legal systems are set up so as to allow such evil, and you must condemn the Government for setting up such systems. Do not condemn Wal Mart. It would be better perhaps, in this blog, to ask this question: if a company such as Wal Mart can play the system so as to be able to make a profit almost anywhere, yet still does not have a store in Detroit, then what is wrong with Detroit? | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4896 Registered: 11-2003 |
Professorscott, excellent post #212. There's a lot wrong for Wal-Mart in Detroit. 1. They already get plenty of Detroit money at the suburban stores. 2. Their model of allowing overnight camping in their parking lots doesn't work in Detroit at all. 3. Shrinkage at Detroit stores has been documented. You got employees and customers stealing day and night. High quality thugs can roll a truck full of Wal-Mart tvs in a flash. 4. High as sky taxation. 5. Low concentrations of people with money to shop there, above and beyond the stores already barely surviving in Detroit. 6. Many examples of retail failings all over the City. 7. Not willing to take down Tiger Stadium when bare land is available out of town. 8. Not enough pick-ups in town to haul schitt home. Nobody wants to scuff the Escalade to get home the Hi-Res. tv. 9. The real only retail model that works in Detroit is Chalden-owned stores where owners work 60 hrs. a week behind bullet proof cages, and fucking pack heat. jjaba doesn't think Ark. crackers are up to that task to make a buck in Detroit. jjaba, the truth. | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4897 Registered: 11-2003 |
10. Detroit Wal-Mart employees must pass fitness test. 11. Detroit Wal-Mart employees must wear the bullet-proof blue model smock with the Smiley Face and May I Help You on it. 12. Wal-Mark employees must qualify to pack a Glock sidearm. 13. Wal-Mart Detroit must have an inside dock for the Brinks truck. 14. Detrit Walt-Mart must install a Lazy Susan glass system to serve Coney dogs. 15. Grocery carts must have radio remote locators on them and locking hubs beyond 50 ft. from store. jjaba, LOL. | ||
Chitaku Member Username: Chitaku Post Number: 1200 Registered: 03-2006 |
hittin the sauce tonight jjaba? | ||
Jjaba Member Username: Jjaba Post Number: 4899 Registered: 11-2003 |
Can't stand the Academy Awards. jjaba. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6366 Registered: 09-2005 |
Now that's the Jjaba I like to see - No dissing here Jjaba - just trying to wake you up and let go with some good stuff (aka "the truth" as per your signoff) Agree or disagree, I know you've got more in you than plugging unions. And I'm glad Jjaba sees casinos for what they are. Bad news for Detroit, but in some ways Detroiters love to self-destruct, so they're here to stay. Pro-scott is spot on. As I mentioned earlier about Kresge/Detroit, no one has mentioned/complained on these threads about wagonmakers/buggywhip producers that went bust because of the Big 3 (Small 8 back then??) or the fact that cars killed/injured thousands more than horse/wagons ever did - yet Americans wanted them and Detroit boomed. That's all OK with DY'ers, but Walmart is bad?? Not sure these days which model cars/trucks are actually built in Detroit - but wouldn't it seem hypocritical if the same Detroiters (Jt1 comes to mind) purchase cars built outside Detroit, foreign or not, since they don't benefit Detroiters? | ||
Professorscott Member Username: Professorscott Post Number: 213 Registered: 12-2006 |
Interesting point: why do Wal Mart and other big-box retailers make money in big cities other than Detroit, but not Detroit? Thieves and thugs abound in other big cities; poverty is rampant in other big cities; small-time merchants hiding from their customers behind Lexan shields are common elsewhere. But for some reason only Detroit is lacking major retailers. | ||
Karl Member Username: Karl Post Number: 6370 Registered: 09-2005 |
Pro-scott, it is beginning to look like New Orleans is "Detroit Overnight" and as such, I post the following. I believe the 2 cities have identical problems, and apparently the author agrees: From Best of the Web Today, by James Taranto: 2/21/2007 Square Root Crime is back in New Orleans, even though the city's population is less than half what it was before Hurricane Katrina, Reuters reports: The larger problem is that New Orleans has too many social problems--drugs, poverty, broken families, poor education--all present before Katrina. A recent murder encapsulated the difficulties. After a 17-year-old was beaten up, his mother gave him a gun and told him to get revenge, and he killed the boy he fought with. When police went to his home to investigate, they found the mother with cocaine and a family photo on display of the son with a gun in one hand and a fistful of cash in the other. "For us to correct this, we have to look at the root of the problem. The root of the problem is our education system," Police Superintendent Warren Riley said in an interview. This column has no brief for government schools, but we have to say that in this particular case there would appear to have been problems at home. |
