Wal*Mart selling RCA 50" DLP!

[007]

walmart IS evil

http://www.destinys-darlin.com/thoughts/walmart.html

[jdm56]

If Wal*Mart is "evil", then I guess General Motors, Toyota, IBM, McDonalds, Klipsch, 3M, Sony - every other successful business may be evil, too. Or at least suspect. Gee, they MUST be doing something wicked to be so prosperous!

Wal*Mart comes to town, and the people vote with their dollars. Simple as that.

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 7/15/2004 9:04:04 AM jdm56 wrote:

If Wal*Mart is "evil", then I guess General Motors, Toyota, IBM, McDonalds, Klipsch, 3M, Sony - every other successful business may be evil, too. Or at least suspect. Gee, they MUST be doing something wicked to be so prosperous!

Wal*Mart comes to town, and the people vote with their dollars. Simple as that.

----------------

Yes, Wally World comes to town and people vote with their dollars.

And when there are no more locally owned grocers, no more locally owned hifi shops (thanks to Best Buy), no more locally owned convenience stores (thanks to Sheetz), no more locally owned restaurants (thanks to Applebee's and Chili's), and no manufacturing jobs because all these companies drove thousands of businesses to overseas labor just to compete in the marketplace they created, we'll all be serfs of the corporate monster.

This is what no one is seeing happen, right in front of your noses.

[ben.]

----------------

On 7/14/2004 10:55:56 PM IndyKlipschFan wrote:

Bclarke421

Thanks to our buying group that does $6 billion annually, we can somewhat compete with them. Anyone want that DLP?

please do not let this be AMWAY..Quixtar... Or any of the subsidiaries too..????

I have just heard it "worded" that way a lot of times.

"Our buying group bypass the middle man gonna get rich blah blah blah"

Proud Wal Mart stockholder since 1978!

----------------

No, it's AVB/BrandSource, an Appliance, Electronics and Furniture retail group. No pyramids around here, other the ones in Vegas at our conventions...

[ben.]

----------------

On 7/15/2004 9:04:04 AM jdm56 wrote:

If Wal*Mart is "evil", then I guess General Motors, Toyota, IBM, McDonalds, Klipsch, 3M, Sony - every other successful business may be evil, too. Or at least suspect. Gee, they MUST be doing something wicked to be so prosperous!

Wal*Mart comes to town, and the people vote with their dollars. Simple as that.

----------------

You continue to miss the point. Prosperity in and of itself is not the problem. It's not the end, it's the means which some companies employ to achieve that end.

Griff and I both have been involved in large and small corporations. If I still worked for Sears (a relatively respectable large corporation, I hate to admit), I'd be making less than half what I do working for a small, locally owned and operated business. Not only would my family be struggling, but I'd sure have a lot less dollars to put back into the economy. People pay the same price for the same commodities at our store as the big guys (often less), but the net profits are redistributed locally through taxes and personal spending.

[gullahisland]

People, indeed, vote with their dollars. Sadly, it's the same people who complain about big business being unfair who are the CORE group of shoppers contributing to Wal-Mart's success.

--We want clean air, clear water, good living conditions, the best health care in the world--yet we aren't willing to pay for anything manufactured under those conditions.--

Don't blame Wal-Mart. Look in the mirror. It is WE who demand the lowest prices at ANY COST. Soon we will know the TRUE cost.

[jdm56]

Basically, what Wal*Mart and most other succesful businesses that have grown to a certain size do, is to leverage that size and strength to their advantage in the marketplace. As far as I know, that is not illegal. Also, it is definitely NOT a violation of anti-trust statutes for a business to sell the same product for different prices in different markets, or to sell products below "fair market value", whatever that is (who decides that?). Dumping is illegal, but what constitutes dumping is not simply selling a product below "market value".

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 7/16/2004 11:19:57 PM jdm56 wrote:

Basically, what Wal*Mart and most other succesful businesses that have grown to a certain size do, is to leverage that size and strength to their advantage in the marketplace. As far as I know, that is not illegal. Also, it is definitely NOT a violation of anti-trust statutes for a business to sell the same product for different prices in different markets, or to sell products below "fair market value", whatever that is (who decides that?). Dumping is illegal, but what constitutes dumping is not simply selling a product below "market value".

----------------

One of my former employers had to deal with Wal-Mart as a supplier. Wal-Mart's has an insidious (unethical but technically not illegal) reputation for beating the living hell out of suppliers to sell to them for less than they sell to other retailers, thus giving Wal-Mart an inherent pricing advantage.

This "beating up" of suppliers for lower prices is what drives those suppliers to manufacture their goods as cheaply as possible, using whatever means necessary, including offshore manufacturing, poor quality components, poor quality materials, whatever it takes to drive those costs down, at the expense of you the consumer, who ends up usually paying too much for something that is practically worthless.

Right now, the only place you can buy shoes in the city of Lynchburg is Wal-Mart or PayLess. All other competition has been driven out of business, and the last PayLess store is sinking fast. Wal-Mart has created a near-monopoly, and soon will have a monopoly on that particular commodity in this city. There are other commodities they have acheived virtual monopoly on as well.

Tell me again about how there's nothing wrong with the way Wal-Mart does business.

The problem we face with mega-corporations is that they think exactly like you do. They don't ask "is it ethical?" but rather "is it legal?" - because ethics wither and die in the face of the shareholder's demand for higher profits.

[radiob]

I live next to Boca Grande Fl, where my neigbors vacation houses are on some of the most exspensive sand in the country, and they all shop at the local wall-mart, 10,000,000 that may buy you a lot. By the way anyone wanting to take a vacation, let me know, the waters in boca have the richest tarpon fishing in the world. Sweeeeeet place.

[ben.]

Dougy,

It is illegal, though. A pattern of behavior exists with WalMart in which they will drive competition out of business by having very low prices in markets where there is competition, only until any significant competition is eliminated. At that point in time, prices are restored to profitable levels. They have very deep pockets, so they can outlast anybody at this game. The point I'm still trying to get acroos is that this behavior is in violation of anti-trust laws going back more than a half century.

I'm not referring to local variations in pricing, but manipulation of the market in an effort to reduce competition.

[Bill H.]

B Clarke,

I fully agree with you on the aspect of undercutting compeitors- I have seen this in our market here in Indiana..........

To get back to the Original point of this post-the bottom line is-Even if Wal Mart had the lowest price on this TV- they don't deliver, or set up. When you have a problem-(hopefully not)-but where can you go for service?????????? Think about that!

[nuclearay]

My local Wallyworld is selling a "42 Plasma for about $2300. I think the brand name is "ILO." And because I live in the country my local Wallyworld also has some of the most interesting fish in the gene pool. Very fun to go people watching!

[BEC]

I have to wonder how many of the small business that have gone out of business because of a Wal-Mart really tried to compete with Wal-Mart. I don't find that competition to be very difficult. I sell some of the same products as Wal-Mart in my small business. On one item my cost is $2.97 each. I don't know the price Wal-Mart pays for that item, but they retail it for $6.99. I can compete very well with them if I am willing to accept only a 100 percent profit. That example is typical of several items in the trailer supply area that I am familiar with. No problem for me in that competition. I missed a lot of sales at first because I thought I could not compete with Wal-Mart. I found that I was wrong about that and that it is easy to compete with them on the items that I sell. Can't comment on other items.

Bob

[Griffinator]

----------------

On 7/17/2004 12:37:04 PM BEC wrote:

I have to wonder how many of the small business that have gone out of business because of a Wal-Mart really tried to compete with Wal-Mart. I don't find that competition to be very difficult. I sell some of the same products as Wal-Mart in my small business. On one item my cost is $2.97 each. I don't know the price Wal-Mart pays for that item, but they retail it for $6.99. I can compete very well with them if I am willing to accept only a 100 percent profit. That example is typical of several items in the trailer supply area that I am familiar with. No problem for me in that competition. I missed a lot of sales at first because I thought I could not compete with Wal-Mart. I found that I was wrong about that and that it is easy to compete with them on the items that I sell. Can't comment on other items.

Bob

----------------

Wal-Mart sells at healthy profit anything where they have little competition. It's the same model Best Buy uses. If no one else has what you have, mark it up as much as possible (see Klipsch Synergy as an example) - but compete hard on stuff everyone has (Sony equipment, for example) until they can no longer compete with you.

We have zero hifi shops in this city thanks to Circuit City and Best Buy. My goal is to bring a bit of a hifi renaissance to the area - by building a class outfit where people can actually hear the equipment in real rooms, and they can A/B the equipment Best Buy and Circuit City sells (as I will procure it and set it up in the same rooms as mine, just so people CAN hear the difference)

[boomer9911]

as a Consumer, Wally World couldn't pay me enough in all honesty.....

[mike stehr]

.

[jdm56]

Do you guys really think that ANYBODY succeeds on a grand scale in business by being Mr Nice Guy to your competition? And what planet y'all from???

I ain't saying Wal*Mart is nice, but I have not seen anything personally, or cited here, that I would call unethical. Hardball, yes, but not unethical.

I try to buy from other places as much as possible, just to try and maintain an alternative to W*M, but I'm not gonna spend money I don't have to, just to prop up a less efficient operation.

[Audible Nectar]

"Don't blame Wal-Mart. Look in the mirror. It is WE who demand the lowest prices at ANY COST. Soon we will know the TRUE cost."

"People vote with their dollars."

Yes, they do.......but much like the real voting booth, folks don't think much about what they are REALLY voting for.

Wal-Mart, as is the case with most corporations, exists for one reason only: To turn a profit, and nothing else. Wal Mart is better than any company at squeezing the most out of every dollar.....even if that means the employees or suppliers.

I remember my first experience with Wal-Mart. A roommate got hired by WM in the late 80's, back when they advertised that their goods were "made in the USA", and that our employees are amongst the best compensated for employees of that store type. And it was so.....especially when one considers the stock compensation that the employees got. But lo, that didn't last long.

NAFTA really got the ball rolling at Wal Mart, because this was when they really began putting the squeeze to the suppliers. Wal Mart was selling soooo many clothes, entire factories stood in order to supply the ever larger chain with goods. When NAFTA (and China achieving favored trade status) occurred, Wal Mart put the pressure on those suppliers in the US against Chinese and other foreign suppliers - DIRECTLY. Wal Mart essentially told suppliers what they were willing to pay for merchandise (which against Chinese factory competition was too high to stay open), so Wal Mart said "tough". The factories closed and the production moved overseas (mostly China), where wages, worker rights, and environmental regulations are substandard.

In addition to the loss of jobs with the US suppliers, a bigger cost began growing within the chain: employees, and thier health costs. Health care costs have grown about 15% per year over the last 5 years - and the insurance premiums that pay for it have too. In addition, the vast majority of Wal Mart employees earn about $7.50 per hour - not enough to be able to pay the health insurance premiums.....or much else. Many Wal Mart employees aren't even allowed the full benefits package - it is common for Wal Mart to keep employees as "part-time", regardless of quantity of hours worked, which keeps them off of the insurance rolls entirely, further reducing Wal Mart expenses.

The health care system pays a price for this. Wal Mart employs ONE MILLION PEOPLE. When an uninsured employee at Wal-Mart gets sick, they wait until they REALLY get sick, and go to the ER......where they MUST be treated. Who ultimately pays for this? YOU, the health care consumer - in increased charges built in to make up for what the uninsured cannot pay for. There is much evidence that Wal Mart managers give employees contact numbers for government assistance programs as a matter of practice, as the problem of Wal Mart uninsured is so pervasive. When an employee gets sick, they have no other place to go. The end result is that society is paying the cost for many of Wal Mart's employees health expenses.

In regards to wages, yes, it is a race to the bottom. Wal Mart is forcing down the wages of supplier workers (or eliminating them entirely), as well as the wages of the employees. It creates a vicious circle. Wal Mart employees end up only being able to afford to shop at Wal Mart. Neat trick, huh?

I find it appalling that this situation exists in the world's largest and most successful retail operation. If they are that successful, at what point does the employee begin to share in that success?

Unfortunately, the outsourcing prevalent in business today leaves the majority of new jobs being Wal Mart type jobs........megacorp service jobs with low wages and no health benefits. There has yet to be any attempt to improve this from the labor/employee point of view, because they have no power to bargain for wages. Some may say, "Big deal, I'm making it, so why can't they? Get a better job, get a degree, blah blah blah. Why should I care"?

You should care, because that business you own or work for is probably dependent on the $$$$ these people spend. Whether you sell insurance, food, homes, services, rebuilt audio gear, whatever - chances are you need those Wal Mart employees (or similar workers) $$$$$ to stay in business. Your business' success is based on THEIR success, because these people spend $$$ at other businesses - like yours. If they fail, so do you. It's a chain reaction. The object of the economic game is to keep the money moving, so everyone gets a little bit here and there. If the movement of $$$$ stops, so does your business.

Consider the percentage of new jobs in the service sector vs. the decline in jobs in other, better paying industries. Not everyone can be a CEO, entreprenuer, real estate/stock broker, doctor, MBA, or other high paying professional.....especially when more and more jobs as a percentage are service sector jobs that pay less then the jobs they replaced. This is the race to the bottom - the gutting of the middle class.

When you vote with your $$$$ at Wal Mart, this is what you are voting for. There is a hidden cost behind that "cheaper than anywhere else" item. It's like the Pillsbury dough boy. Push in here, and a little bit spreads out all over the other side of his belly. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Or as they used to say in the '70's: ***, gas, or grass - nobody rides for free.

[gullahisland]

Audible Nectar - Nice post. I agree with your observations whole-heartedly.

How would you recommend that we solve this problem?

My point is that, as with all things, personal responsibility needs to take the front seat. A business can't exist without customers. People who already understand the danger of continuing to support Wal-Mart need to look in the mirror and take a stand.

Second, discussions such as this will, hopefully, enlighten people as to the hidden risks of low prices at any cost. Sadly, as you so eloquently stated, the people who "like" low prices will ultimately shop to the point that they "need" low prices 'cuz their good-paying job has been moved off-shore in order for their employer to compete with the Chinese knock-off crap carried by Wal-Mart. Or their employer moves all of the jobs off-shore in order to get their manufacturing costs low enough to have their product SOLD at Wal-Mart. In either case...they ain't got a job no more!

[Audible Nectar]

"How would you recommend that we solve this problem?"

First, we have to recognize that there IS a problem.

The other answer lies in a sentence that I point blank stole from the Audiokarma site this morning:

"Before a wise man acts, he will ask himself the question: Will this action hurt another - or will this action not only benefit me but all others who might be affected?"

If this question were applied to our institutions (corporate, government, and individual) - we would be much better off. It starts with the removal of ignorance. That's a very difficult task, especially when most simply are not paying attention. They are too busy working and going on about thier daily business to care. The type of mindset necessary to achieve any meaningful change, however, may not occur until a cataclismic event occurs that cannot be ignored - especially on a financial level. When this mounting storm manifests in enough people's wallets, then they will pay attention. And it WILL manifest, because, quite frankly, this economic engine is built to fail as it currently operates.....for many, many reasons.

Discussing this is a start, though. So is making purchases based on what you believe fits the above "wise man's" criteria.

When I look back on how I acquired my audio system (back on topic, now;) ), it IS a reflection of other values I hold dear.

Quality product: Is there any doubt of the build quality of Heritage Klipsch and old McIntosh stuff? Don't you wish your audio gear was built like a brick s#ithouse, made to last longer than YOU? I want my gear built that way, because I plan to keep it. I don't buy disposable items. Quite frankly, I would rather spend time doing other things than shopping, so why not get it right the first time, and be done with the issue?

Renewal/Recycling of items: Why throw away an item that, when restored, performs as good as new, and often better than new gear does? Sheltie Dave, our resident "dumpster diver", is my hero for rescuing all of those goodies from the dumpsters, and therefore the landfills. It's AMAZING what people throw away.

Method of purchase: I rarely have had more pleasurable purchasing experiences than I've had on this forum. NO DEALER has provided a level of willingness to meet the "all sides win" goal that should be the goal of any business transaction. I win because I get a product I cannot get many other places, and the seller wins by benefitting the most from my purchase. The seller doesn't have to share it with his boss!!!! ALL of the money or product traded goes to that seller.

Other business generated: The rebuilding of my McIntosh gear gave somebody (in this case, Terry Dewick in Tennessee) a job. I feel much better having someone like Terry working on my gear, because he understands that his work is his signature. He relies on the quality of that signature to ensure future business. NO megacorp can provide such attention to the customer, and no other method of business benefits the worker so directly.

Fiscally responsible/value for the dollar: It's much cheaper building systems this way!! HIGH END performance for mid-fi dollars.

So yes, you do vote with your $$$$. And when one thinks about it, it is discovered that there are many more choices out there than first thought possible. Remove the boundaries, and you remove the ignorance. It is then that one begins to make educated and conscious choices.