Arnold Schwarzenegger proving once again...

[hooligan]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/18/schwarzenegger.vetoes.ap/index.html

keep wal-marts out of our neighborhoods! raise minimum wage! and fuck drug tests!

Schwarzenegger vetoes minimum wage hike

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed bills Saturday that would have raised the minimum wage to $7.75 an hour, made Wal-Mart-like megastores more difficult to build and limited schools' ability to give students random drug tests.

The Republican governor contended the minimum wage and megastore legislation would have hurt the state's economy and said drug testing policies should be left up to school officials.

The minimum wage bill would have raised California's minimum wage from $6.75 to $7.25 January 1 and to $7.75 on January 1, 2006. The federal minimum wage is $5.15 an hour.

Bill supporters said the minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation, but Schwarzenegger said the legislation would have discouraged economic growth.

"Now is not the time to create barriers to our economic recovery or reverse the momentum we have generated," he said in a veto message. "I want to create more jobs and make every California job more secure."

The megastore bill would have required cities and counties to complete economic impact reports before ruling on proposals to build retail stores with more than 130,000 square feet and that devote more than 10 percent of their space to selling food. The reports would have included assessments of the stores' impact on other businesses, wages, public services and traffic.

Supporters, including the California Independent Grocers Association and several labor unions, said such stores can drive out other businesses and result in lower wages, more part-time jobs and traffic congestion. Opponents included the state Chamber of Commerce, Costco, Wal-Mart and the League of California Cities.

Schwarzenegger said the bill would have imposed "unnecessary, burdensome restrictions on businesses attempting to expand in California."

The school bill would have allowed random drug testing of students only if the program was voluntary on the part of students and parents and not funded by state or local taxes. The measure also would have barred requiring students to agree to random testing to participate in extracurricular activities.

"I cannot support legislation that eliminates the ability of local school districts to make decisions based on the needs and values of their community," Schwarzenegger said.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Oh no! He wants to let an evil evil CORPORATION into poor neighborhoods so they can ... chop up poor people into spare parts? Turn blacks into slaves again? No ... oh wait, you say they wanna cut through old inefficient distribution networks to bring lower prices to consumers on things like, say, pharmaceuticals (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=18801), and give people jobs which offer them a hope of advancing to management (try looking up statistics on proportion of Wal-mart managers who came up through the ranks)? My god! That's even more evil! Keep them outta my neighborhood!

[hooligan]

Oh no! He wants to let an evil evil CORPORATION into poor neighborhoods so they can ... chop up poor people into spare parts? Turn blacks into slaves again? No ... oh wait, you say they wanna cut through old inefficient distribution networks to bring lower prices to consumers on things like, say, pharmaceuticals (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=18801), and give people jobs which offer them a hope of advancing to management (try looking up statistics on proportion of Wal-mart managers who came up through the ranks)? My god! That's even more evil! Keep them outta my neighborhood! try looking at research of how wal-mart ruins communities.

nice sarcasm, it's quite becoming of you.

Wal-Mart Collapses
U.S. Cities and Towns

by Richard Freeman [The charts referenced in this article are available to paid subscribers of Electronic Intelligence Weekly (http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/index.html).]

During the last 20 years, Wal-Mart has moved into communities and destroyed them, wiping out stores, slashing the tax base, and turning downtown areas into ghost-towns. This is accomplished through Wal-Mart's policy of paying workers below subsistence wages, and importing goods that have been produced under slave-labor conditions overseas. Often, communities will even give Wal-Mart tax incentives, for the right to be destroyed.

Wal-Mart both reflects, and is, a major driving force for America's deadly implementation of the Imperial Rome model. Unable to produce physical goods to sustain its own existence, the United States, like Rome, sucks in imported goods from around the world, using, in this case, a dollar that is over-valued by 50-60%. America has been transformed from a producer to a consumer society. From the 1940s through the early 1960s, through its technologically-advanced manufacturing-agricultural economy, America produced new value that contributed to mankind's advancement. Through a "post-industrial society" policy, the bankers have pushed Wal-Mart to the top of the heap, so that it is now the world's largest corporation, with $245.5 billion in sales last year. Wal-Mart, which produces no value-added whatsoever, dominates the geometry that governs the U.S. consumer society. America consumes goods that others produce, which Wal-Mart markets. Wal-Mart dictates, through its demand for low prices, that its suppliers outsource their production to foreign nations, further ripping down America's battered domestic manufacturing and agricultural capability, in a self-feeding process.

Presidential candidate Lyndon LaRouche has called for an international boycott of Wal-Mart. He told a cadre school of the LaRouche Youth Movement on Nov. 10: "Wal-Mart is probably one of the major foreign enemies of the United States! And, it's based in the United States. Where Wal-Mart strides, whole communities collapse! It runs in like a vampire: It flies in by night, and sucks the blood of the citizens, and the cows, and so forth. In the morning, there's not much left! Except unemployment and cheap labor. What Wal-Mart is doing to many communities of the Americas, is comparable to what happens to the poor Chinese, who are victims of the cheap-labor programs, which supply most of the product which Wal-Mart sells, as cheap-labor product."

Wal-Mart pays its American workers sweat-shop wages, and enforces a worldwide system of concentration camp production plants, where some workers are literally kept as indentured servants (see EIR, Nov. 14). Here, we look at how Wal-Mart has laid waste communities from Iowa to Mississippi, from Ohio to Oklahoma.

Destroying Iowa

Iowa represents the paradigm of Wal-Mart's destruction of a state and its communities. Iowa is a leading agricultural state, with an industrial center in its northeast. In 1983, Wal-Mart opened its first store in the state. Since that time, the number of other retail stores that Wal-Mart has forced to close in Iowa, in communities of 5,000 or fewer people, is immense.

Sam Walton started Wal-Mart in his home town of Bentonville, Arkansas in 1962. At first he concentrated on Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, along with a few other southern states. Beginning in the 1980s, he spread Wal-Mart out as a national chain, shifting from discount stores with 40-70,000 square feet of sales space, to increasingly building Sam's Club and supercenters, which typically have 150-200,000 square feet. The idea was to use its ability to sell a huge volume of goods, its sweat-shop pay to American workers, and its flood of cheap imports, to blow apart any competition. In the October 1996 issue of Wal-Mart Today, an internal company newsletter, Tom Coughlin, executive vice president for operations, summed up the approach: "At Wal-Mart, we make dust. Our competitors eat dust."

In looking at Iowa, we encounter a myth: that when Wal-Mart opened a store in Town A, it may have hurt by a small amount the sales of stores in other towns neighboring Town A—as the people from the other towns went to Wal-Mart to do some of their shopping; but nonetheless, Wal-Mart so increased the volume of sales at its own store and other stores in Town A, that the stores in the overall region experienced significant sales growth and job growth. Wal-Mart hired compliant research and marketing firms to "prove" this point. This is a lie.

We look at what happened to Iowa communities of 5,000 or fewer people. Significant research has been done in this area by Prof. Kenneth Stone of Iowa State University, which we draw upon. Since it is difficult to see what effect occurred after only one or two years, we look at the effects after ten years or longer.

Using sales tax records, Professor Stone compared the change in sales volume at stores located in towns where Wal-Mart opened one of its stores (a "Wal-Mart Town"), and in the neighboring towns where Wal-mart did not open a store ("Neighboring Non Wal-Mart Town"). In cases selected from the study, the sales at Wal-Mart stores themselves are not included, since the focus here is to measure the "Wal-Mart effect": Once Wal-Mart opens a store, what happens to all the other stores in the neighboring communities, in Iowa communities of 5,000 or fewer people?

Figure 1 presents the change in sales volume for Iowa home furnishings stores (furniture stores, major appliance stores, drapery stores, etc.). One year after Wal-Mart opened a store in a town, in the Neighboring Non Wal-Mart Towns, at home furnishing stores the sales volume collapsed by 14%. People from the Non Wal-Mart Towns travelled to the towns where a Wal-Mart had opened, to purchase a share of their home furnishings at the Wal-Mart store. However, by the tenth year after the Wal-Mart store had opened, in the Neighboring Non Wal-Mart Towns, at home furnishing stores the sales volume had fallen a stunning 31% below the level it had been ten years earlier. A large number of home furnishing stores were forced to close.

In the Wal-Mart Towns, by the tenth year after the Wal-Mart store had opened, the sales volume at home furnishing stores had declined by only 1%. Clearly, the home furnishing stores located at Neighboring Non Wal-Mart Towns, had suffered the brunt of the damage.

Figure 2 presents the change in sales volume for Iowa specialty stores (sporting goods stores, druggists, jewelry stores, card and gift shops, florists, etc.). In the Wal-Mart Towns, by the tenth year after the Wal-Mart store had opened, the sales volume at specialty stores had plunged by 17%. In the Neighboring Non Wal-Mart Towns, by the tenth year after the Wal-Mart store had opened, the sales volume at specialty stores had tumbled by 28%.

Figure 3 presents the change in sales volume for Iowa apparel stores, showing a 28% decline by the tenth year in both Wal-Mart Towns and Non Wal-Mart Towns. The Wal-Mart Towns had not escaped the Wal-Mart effect.

Thus, Wal-Mart's assertion that the sales by a range of stores in Neighboring Non Wal-Mart Towns would fall by a small amount, and that the sales volume by a range of stores in Wal-Mart Towns would rise significantly, is completely false.

Putting aside this myth, Figure 4 shows the catastrophe caused by the Wal-Mart effect in Iowa, inclusive of towns that did and did not have a Wal-Mart store. The period under consideration is 1983-96, three years longer than the earlier study, giving three more years of the devastation. By 1996, 13 years after a Wal-Mart had opened in a town, the volume of sales at department stores, which includes Wal-Mart and other large discount chains, rose by 42%. However, since 1983, sales at grocery stores fell by 11%; sales at drug stores fell by 32%; and sales at men's and boys' stores dropped headlong by 59%. Iowa's retail and grocery stores, which form the underpinning of communities, had been ravaged.

Table 1 shows the second phase of the Wal-Mart effect: the closing of stores whose revenues had collapsed. All told, a staggering 7,326 stores closed in Iowa communities of 5,000 or less people (the table covers a ten-year period through 1993; were it to cover the longer period through 1996, the number of store closings would be even greater). The health and vitality of these communities, including employment at rising wages and benefits, the generation of taxes, etc., will not be restored.

Nationwide Blood-Letting

Wal-Mart destroyed other communities and cities. For example:

Toledo, Ohio. Author Al Norman describes the effect of Wal-Mart and Home Depot (another outsourcing chain) on Toledo: "When I went for a walk in downtown Toledo, I passed the old Lamson dry goods store: 9 stories of empty retail space. Each floor is the size of a football field. The building served as the home of a Macy's Department store from 1924 to 1984. For the past fourteen years, the store has been empty. The City now owns it, which means the taxpayers of Toledo are paying the freight for its upkeep."

Nowata, Oklahoma. In 1982, Wal-Mart opened a store on the outskirts of Nowata, a town of 4,000 people. Half of the small businesses in downtown Nowata shut down. Then in 1994, Wal-Mart abruptly closed this store, as well as another in a nearby town, and opened up a supercenter in Bartlesville, which is 30 miles away, leaving Nowata prostrate.

Mississippi. A study found that in small towns in the state, five years after the opening of a Wal-Mart, the dollar volume of grocery store trade had collapsed 17%.

Vermont. In an attempt to stop Wal-Mart from becoming large in the state, various towns passed restrictions that would halt Wal-Mart construction. Wal-Mart built stores in the neighboring New Hampshire and New York, which sucked business out of Vermont.

Collapsing Tax Revenue

Despite all this, many states and communities are using taxpayers' money to finance subsidies to Wal-Mart, to come in and rape them.

In 1999, it was reported that in Olivette, Missouri, a developer received a tax incentive of up to $38.9 million for a construction project including a Wal-Mart and a Sam's Club—more than a third of the projected total cost of the project. In 1998, it was reported that the city of Chesterfield, Missouri was supplying $25.5 million in tax incentives toward the construction of a $100 million-plus mall, anchored by a Wal-Mart. In 2001, Ohio approved $10 million in tax credits and other assistance for Wal-Mart to build two distribution centers and an eyeglass-manufacturing facility.

These insane subsidies draw down the public finances. At the same time, Wal-Mart decimates the tax-base through other methods:





Many stores which, unlike Wal-Mart, did not get tax breaks, are closed. This causes the loss to many states of sales taxes, and to all states of corporate profit taxes.








Workers at established stores that have been closed by the Wal-Mart effect, who were paid higher wages than workers at Wal-Mart, have been fired, causing a drop in state income taxes.








Wal-Mart's outsourcing caused the loss of 1-1.5 million manufacturing production jobs, and thus the taxes that these workers and the manufacturing plants that they worked at, would have paid.








States and cities often have to finance downtown revitalization programs for the areas devastated by Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart certainly produces a wealth effect: the loss of wealth. Just walk through any community downtown with its empty or boarded-up stores, to see the workings of the Wal-Mart effect.

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/3045walmart_iowa.html


The retailing giant Wal-Mart must be nirvana for Black people. Its commercials, full of sentimental background music, soft focus photography, and earnest looking real people give the impression that it is just short of heaven on earth. I have seen commercials showing a Black mother exhorting her daughter to pursue a career at Wal-Mart. In another we are told that the Crenshaw area of Los Angeles was saved by Wal-Mart. By occupying an empty space Wal-Mart brought jobs, hope, love, respect, and good karma to this community. A discount store had accomplished what urban planners, academics, and politicians could not.

Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest retailer and with 1.2 million workers the largest employer as well. It prevents union organizing on its sites, and before being sued forced employees to work overtime but did not pay them for doing so. The American desire for a good bargain has created a retailing behemoth with low prices and low wages to match. Wal-Mart had already cut a swath across mostly rural America by putting smaller retailers out of business. But the giant that began as a five and dime store in Bentonville, Arkansas is now conquering new territory.

Apparently some among Black leadership believe that businesses, no matter how exploitative, are always good for their needy communities. John Mack (http://www.mises.org/blogDetail.asp?control=1119), President of the Los Angeles Urban League, said, “We need to have retail outlets that are convenient and offer quality goods and services at low prices. I really think that there are potential economic benefits for this community with the addition of a Wal-Mart."

http://www.blackcommentator.com/72/72_images/72_fr_2.gif

It may be a difficult choice for distressed communities to reject potential employers, but the growth of Wal-Mart in California jeopardizes the jobs of 250,000 unionized grocery store workers who currently make $10 per hour more than their Wal-Mart counterparts. The need to compete with Wal-Mart has sparked a strike (http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=17040) in Southern California that began in October. Grocery stores want to reduce union worker benefits out of fear that they will be unable to compete with Wal-Mart’s low wages. Are Black communities so needy that they have to take jobs that won’t pay a living wage? Others are less enamored of Wal-Mart’s false image of love and happiness. The City of Oakland has passed legislation to prohibit so-called “big box (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1005954/posts)” stores in an attempt to curb the threats that Wal-Martization presents to its residents.

The issue of Wal-Mart’s supposed benefits to distressed neighborhoods raises the recurrent theme of economic activity, or lack of same, in Black communities. Communities with greater resources reject Wal-Mart and its ilk out of hand because of concerns about sprawl and destruction of neighboring businesses. It may be easier to say that Wal-Mart is better than nothing, but a corporation that has cheated employees out of wages and fires them because they are in interracial relationships (http://www.anti-walmart.com/badwalmart/discrimination.html) makes the case that half a loaf is worse than none.

It is understandable that John Mack and others are looking to increase employment, but what happens when the employer pays such low wages that its employees are eligible for public assistance (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/07/EDGP52RU6R1.DTL)? Some Wal-Mart employees in California were given information on how to apply for food stamps and other welfare benefits. Do Black neighborhoods really need more public assistance? I was under the impression that employment was supposed to end the need for public assistance, not provide for it.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/72/72_images/72_fr_3.gif

Unfortunately, even some of Wal-Mart’s detractors miss the significance of its growth and paint it as some sort of aberration in the history of American capitalism. In fact Wal-Mart has perfected this system and the result is the logical conclusion of capitalism unrestrained. One can argue that it all works out. The Wal-Martization of America provides us with the lower cost goods we will all need when our wages are lowered by the Wal-Marts of the world.

Black leadership should not give into the argument that our communities are in such need that Wal-Mart and its acts of harassment can be considered an asset. Wal-Mart employees are punished (http://www.retailworker.com/News%2Barticle-sid-51-mode-thread-order-0.html) for involvement in union activity and are encouraged to spy on one another. Is it asking too much for these leaders to think of other ways to bring new employment opportunities or respond to redlining and other factors that keep businesses out of our neighborhoods? Apparently it is, and not just in Crenshaw.

In my community, Harlem, the so-called capital of Black America, we hear much about redevelopment. Bill Clinton opening an office was supposed to bring a 180 degree change in the fortunes of our neighborhood. There are now large retailers such as Old Navy, Marshall’s, and H&M on 125th Street. I don’t argue against their presence, but we still lack the business development that is so much more evident in other Manhattan neighborhoods. Outside of the showcase that 125th Street has become there are still too many empty store fronts and those that exist are the usual fast food outlets, hair dressers, small churches, and check cashing places.

When we do have vital businesses they often disappear. My favorite restaurant, Wilson’s, which had a bakery, waiter service and good, inexpensive food was open one week and closed the next without any explanation or warning. I went for an after church brunch to find a tiny note on the door that read “closed.” The space is now occupied by a Dominican restaurant, which is not surprising given the demographic changes to that part of Harlem. But the fate of Wilson’s and other Black owned businesses remains a mystery to once loyal customers and residents who desperately want to see a strong economic base in their neighborhoods.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/72/72_images/72_fr_4.gif

My Walton relatives hail from the same region of Arkansas as the late Sam Walton, founder of Wal-Mart. My family would joke that perhaps we were related and were due some of the wealthy Walton cash. No one was able to substantiate any connection and our wishful thinking remained just that. Now I wish that the Black communities were not so downtrodden that an Old Navy opening was big news or that a bad employer might be welcomed with open arms.

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in http://www.blackcommentator.com/images/end_mark.gif. Ms. Kimberley is a freelance writer living in New York City. She can be reached via e-Mail at margaret.kimberley@blackcommentator.com. You can read more of Ms. Kimberley's writings at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com (http://freedomrider.blogspot.com/)/ http://www.blackcommentator.com/72/72_fr_wal_mart.html

[AliBabaIncorporated]

"How walmart ruins communities." Sounds like unbiased, academic stuff to me.

Wonder why so many black consumers are in favor of Wal-mart. Oh yeah, I forgot, they've been tricked by the power structure into believing stuff that's against their own interest.

In all seriousness, why do liberals hate wal-mart? Is it a class thing? Do they wanna prove themselves superior by shopping at stores which are more expensive and forcing everyone else to do the same?

[ZiJing]

this whole walmart thing reminds me of this article i read about walmarts being the cause of the state of vermont being added to the endangered species list of historical...stuff.

yea, my .02

[hooligan]

http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/ns11222002.cfm

Working Families to Wal-Mart: Respect Workers, Respect Communities Working families nationwide came together Nov. 21 with students, elected officials and members of community, civil rights, environmental and consumer groups for a National Day of Action at Wal-Mart stores. The day of action was part of the ongoing People’s Campaign—Justice@Wal-Mart.

At more than 100 locations in more than 40 states, Wal-Mart customers, many of them union members, stood with other community members saying they want to spend their money at stores that recognize the value of being a good corporate neighbor—stores that responsibly raise living and working standards rather than eroding them.

At a Nov. 18 press conference announcing the day of action, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney said, “America’s middle class exists today because the biggest, strongest companies in decades past worked with their employees to guarantee pensions and health care. But Wal-Mart has stepped back from that tradition….The biggest corporation in America today has a business plan that lowers living standards….”

At an Alexandria, Va., Wal-Mart store, United Food and Commercial Workers President Douglas Dority and AFSCME Vice President William Lucy demonstrated with a 150-strong group, including grassroots activists and representatives of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Organization for Women and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement. “We are here today not to protest against Wal-Mart, we are here today to demonstrate our support for Wal-Mart workers,” said Dority.

At a Wal-Mart store in South Bend, Ind., union activists turned out with an alliance of community allies, faith-based groups and students and professors from the University of Notre Dame. AFL-CIO Executive Vice President Linda Chavez-Thompson told the gathering of more than 200 that union activists stand beside Wal-Mart workers who want a union.

“We know that because of the union, we have a larger paycheck, affordable health insurance, a safer workplace, a reliable pension when we retire, more job security and, above all, a voice of our own at work,” she said.

Wal-Mart is the largest private employer in the country with more than 1 million employees.

Because of its size, Wal-Mart exerts tremendous influence on the practices of other retailers. According to research by the UFCW and the nonprofit Institute for Women’s Policy Research, Wal-Mart is setting the lowest common denominator for wages and benefits—its workers are paid $2 to $3 an hour less than union workers who perform similar jobs and less than 38 percent of its workers are covered by company-provided health insurance.

Wal-Mart Disrespects Workers’ Rights

On the day of action, community allies and activists heard about Wal-Marts low-road practices:

*Wal-Mart buys products from such countries as Bangladesh, Honduras and other developing nations where sweatshops and child labor are common, according to the anti-sweatshop action group National Labor Committee (NLC). The NLC lists Wal-Mart as one of the largest customers of manufacturing plants in China, a country where workers’ rights systematically are denied and workers and prisoners regularly are forced into labor.

*Wal-Mart is facing two major sexual discrimination lawsuits. In California, current and former Wal-Mart employees have filed suit alleging company-wide gender discrimination in promotion, compensation and job assignment practices. In August 2002, a federal judge in Atlanta granted class-action status to a lawsuit contending that Wal-Mart discriminates against women by denying health insurance coverage for birth control. According to the National Organization for Women, Wal-Mart saves about $5 million a month by denying contraceptive coverage to its women workers.

*Recently, an Arizona court ruled in favor of a female employee who sued Wal-Mart after she left her job to attend college and then was not rehired because she was pregnant. A Kansas court rejected Wal-Mart’s motion to dismiss a case filed by a woman who was denied a promotion because, according to her supervisor’s testimony, “she was pregnant.”

*The Kentucky Commission on Human Rights in June ordered Wal-Mart to pay $40,000 in back pay to an interracial couple the commission said was fired by Wal-Mart for dating.


yeah?

[AliBabaIncorporated]

As for that article, it's just a typical anti-outsourcing, anti-corporate rant. "Oh no, poor people overseas got jobs and sales at small shops dropped while sales at Wal-mart rose." And he has lots of figures to support that, But he takes all the way until the end of the article to address actual negative effects, like drops in sales tax revenue, for which he presents about zero data.

[hooligan]

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0126-05.htm

Wal-Mart vs. America's Middle Class
by James O. Goldsborough
One way to look at President Bush's amnesty plan for illegal immigrants is through the lens of Southern California's grocery shutdown. Employers such as Wal-Mart, already under investigation for hiring illegal immigrants and other malpractices, will use amnestied workers to drive wages and benefits down still further.

The grocery business is living on the edge, and not just in California. Traditionally, grocery workers have been able to make a decent living. The wage of full-time unionized clerks averages around $15 an hour – $25,000-$30,000 annually, depending on hours worked. In addition, workers have had health care benefits.

At these levels, grocery clerks survived in this region despite its high real estate prices. Often they had long commutes, especially if their stores were in affluent suburbs, but for decades these workers were as much a part of America's solid middle class as service workers anywhere. They owned houses, raised families, took comfort in belonging to America's company-based health care system.

Along comes Wal-Mart, the world's largest business, whose revenues equal an astounding 2 percent of U.S. GDP and whose power rivals that of the great trusts of a century ago. Specifically, Wal-Mart resembles the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, which in its heyday owned 80 percent of the supermarket business, until Washington used the trust laws to whittle it down to size.

Wal-Mart plans to open 225 supercenters this year alone. That includes new stores and expansions of existing stores to add grocery departments directly in competition with Safeway (Vons), Ralphs and Albertsons, stores currently involved in the strike-lockout. Forty supercenters are planned for California in coming years.

Wal-Mart has the distinction of having four of its Walton owners ranked among America's 10 richest people, according to Forbes. The Waltons do especially well because their employees do especially poorly, with clerks earning, on average, 40 percent less than unionized workers, and receiving either marginal health care coverage or none at all.

The chain keeps its prices low and owners rich. Last year the five Walton heirs saw their net worth increase from $94 billion to $102 billion.

Wal-Mart's remarkable growth raises this question: How will blanketing the nation in supercenters affect our communities? In 1948, the A&P's abuses were flagrant enough that the government used the Robinson-Patman Act to enjoin the company from using price discrimination to drive smaller grocers out of business.

But antitrust vigor has faded in our globalized world, allowing mastodons to stroll the Earth again. Happy with low prices, Wal-Mart customers don't connect those prices to the demise of neighborhood stores, the influx of illegal immigrants or the use of foreign suppliers to replace U.S. companies.

Antitrust law once saw its goal as "the organization of industry in small units that can effectively compete against each other," as Judge Learned Hand wrote in U.S. v. Alcoa, 1945. Today, we have moved away from that view, but to where? Wal-Mart has replaced the A&P as the grocery leviathan changing the face of whole communities. Is this right?

In economic theory, the answer is, yes. In economic theory, pure competition drives down prices and everyone benefits: consumers with lower prices, owners with greater profits, workers with higher wages.

In the real world, competition is never pure, which is why antitrust legislation was written. The risk to society was that Standard Oil, Alcoa or the A&P would lower prices to drive competitors out of business.

And then raise prices.

Antitrust laws were one protection against rapaciousness, and organized labor was another. With unions, tycoons like Andrew Carnegie, George Pullman and Henry Ford no longer could dictate wages via goon squads.

Taken together, antitrust legislation and organized labor helped to modulate business practices and create the American middle class.

Where will Wal-Mart find minimum-wage workers for its new supercenters, to help lower its prices, break the unions at traditional stores and drive those stores out of business?

hat's where Bush's illegal immigrant amnesty comes in. Under his plan, illegal immigrants can be legalized if an employer sponsors them. Wal-Mart, already gaining national attention for its labor abuses, will be the first sponsor in line. Here are three current charges against the company:

A government investigation accuses it of employing illegal immigrants. A group of illegal immigrants is suing it for discrimination. A third case involves the company's so-called "lock-in" policy, under which employees are locked into stores overnight, a policy that has led to several accidents.

Communities are wrong to focus solely on the benefits of Wal-Mart's low prices. Low prices come at a social cost vastly outweighing their benefits.

We won't see this until smaller grocers are gone, more supplier companies are offshore, amnestied workers replace Americans and no one can ever walk to a grocery store again.

Then it will be too late.

© Copyright 2004 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.

so?

http://www.dailytrojan.com/news/2004/09/14/Opinions/WalMart.Destroys.Sacred.Ancient.Sites-717853.shtml






Wal-Mart destroys sacred ancient sites


Wal-Mart is at it again.

As the world's largest corporation, little time seems to pass when Wal-Mart is not in a battle with a community that, despite the corporation's promise of always having low prices, is not interested in having the gigantic superstore set up shop.

This time, Wal-Mart has its eye on a site at the edge of ancient Aztec ruins in Teotihuacan, Mexico, a major archeological site outside Mexico City.

Opponents in the town have taken legal action to try to stop the superstore's construction, because they say it is an invasion into their way of life and that this conquest of their town by global commercial interests will lead to the destruction of their culture.

According to CNN, the construction site sits less than a mile away from a gated park that houses the main ruins. If the protesting residents fail in their David vs. Goliath-like struggle to stop construction, park visitors who go to scale the ruins' main site - the Pyramid of Sun - will from now on be treated to a majestic view of Wal-Mart down below. A disturbing sight that proves to some that nothing really is sacred anymore.

The controversy also does not end simply with the construction site's proximity to the park. The Mexican government reported that during the construction an altar dating back to before Spanish settlement was uncovered, reaffirming the sanctity of the land.

Though there are several success stories of groups in the United States blocking Wal-Mart construction, the task faced by the people of Teotihuacan looks to be almost too daunting.

In 1996 residents of Gig Harbor, Wash. were able to stop the construction of a Wal-Mart only after an exhausting 2-year legal battle.

The Peninsula Neighborhood Association took on "The Wal" because they said they realized there is more to life than "cheap underwear."

The corporation had proposed to build a superstore on 20 acres of forested land - a project that would have destroyed local streams, wetlands and animal habitats.

Last April, the residents of Inglewood voted to reject Wal-Mart's proposal to build a retail and grocery Supercenter on a site spanning the area of 17 football fields.

The residents' motivation was the economic and social impact the corporation has been seen to have: forcing smaller retailers out of business and offering wages well below that of other retailers.

A study released by the UC Berkeley Labor Center in August 2004 confirmed Inglewood's fears, the study reported that on average, Wal-Mart's wages are 31 percent below that of a large sample group of retailers - $9.70 an hour versus $14.01 an hour.

The study also found that the employees, because of their lower earning power from inadequate wages and benefits, have caused a strain on the state of California's public-assistance budget, because they often rely on social programs such as food stamps, Medicare and subsidized housing in order to get by.

According to the research, if all California's major retailers cut wages and benefits as low as Wal-Mart's it would cause the state's public-assistance budget to rise by $410 million annually.

Wal-Mart often pleads its case saying it brings jobs to communities that otherwise would not exist. However, with the closing of small retailers and low wages, the corporation has also been responsible for unemployment and underemployment in many of these same communities.

I, like you, have seen those television commercials explaining the philanthropy of Wal-Mart and the donations and service it provides to local communities. However, with the overall effect the retailer has on communities, some new books and computers for local schools do not exactly make up for all the cultural, environmental, economic and social damage the company has done and has attempted to do around the United States and elsewhere in the world.

There is no arguing that Wal-Mart, with its massive reach, is a triumph of capitalism, and some say that is all that matters because a corporation's job is to maximize profits not provide social welfare.

But the people of Teotihuacan, Gig Harbor and Inglewood have shown that easy access to cheap clothing and DVD players is not worth handing over the control of their community's culture and well-being to big-box retail giant. I know I will symbolically continue to join them in their fight by shopping elsewhere.
http://www.ufcw.org/worker_political_agenda/worker_issues/walmart/walmartbadforworkers.cfm


Wal-Mart Bad for Workers and Communities
11/02

This is a letter to the UFCW from Bill Pascrell Jr., New Jersey's 8th District Representative.

I am writing to update you on my recent efforts to promote greater social responsibility from our largest corporations.

On November 21, I joined union workers in a huge rally in Clifton, New Jersey, to demand that Wal-Mart stop abusing its domestic and international workers with deplorable labor conditions. Wal-Mart is now the world's largest corporation, and has become the world's most powerful private force for lowering labor standards and stifling the middle class aspirations of workers everywhere.

The average Wal-Mart employee earns less than the poverty level for a family of four - only $15,000 per year for full-time work, and most are forced to work part-time. Wal-Mart essentially leaves their employees without health care benefits, as they are only available after two years, and then are barely affordable to most employees after that. It is nearly impossible to support one person, never mind a family, on the average wage at Wal-Mart.

"Made In America," the autobiography by company founder Sam Walton, must be a fictional work of art. In reality, Wal-Mart feels it unnecessary to produce goods in America. The vast majority of their products are made in nations where cheap labor is abundant. In 2001, Wal-Mart even moved its worldwide purchasing headquarters to China.

Wal-Mart does not empower its workers, or enrich its communities. Its corporate leadership is strongly opposed to unionization, because a collective bargaining unit would threaten its ability to break child labor laws, to deny workers pay for overtime work, and to monitor employees, all common practices at these stores. Wal-Mart also acts as a massive wealth extractor from local communities. Local economies are certainly not helped by stores full of part-time, poorly paid employees who cannot build the wealth necessary to sustain a community's middle class living standards.

Wal-Mart is only one of the most egregious examples of corporations becoming immensely profitable through exploitation of its workers. It highlights the need for an expanded definition of corporate responsibility in America today. Distorting earnings reports, and stealing money from shareholders, are not the only ways that corporate executives betray the trust of their employees and threaten the health of the economy.

Corporate responsibility requires not just getting the books straight, but being a good corporate citizen. Corporations must enhance, not dimmish, the economic landscape of the communities they serve. Growth cannot be measured solely by corporate profits. It must be measured by the growth in the livelihoods of America's citizens and in the livability of its communities.

Please be assured that I will continue to join our nation's workers on the front lines of the fight to raise the working conditions and wages of people not only at home, but worldwide.

Sincerely,
Bill Pascrell, Jr.
Member of Congress



http://www.postgazette.com/pg/04256/377060.stm

Without changes, Wal-Mart cheer will fall on deaf ears in urban America

Sunday, September 12, 2004

By Steven Pearlstein
WASHINGTON -- It's too bad that Wal-Mart decided not to go ahead with a new store in the District of Columbia.

That's not only because consumers here would benefit from the convenient location and low prices. It's also because allowing Wal-Mart into places such as Washington will change Wal-Mart more than it will change us.

Here's the dirty little secret about Wal-Mart: Just when everyone has decided it is an unstoppable monster about to take over the world, the reality is that its much-vaunted business model has pretty much played itself out.

That model, of course, is built on a foundation of low wages, meager benefits, high turnover and legally questionable union-busting strategies.

But the Wal-Mart formula also requires cheap and plentiful land on which to construct identical versions of its large stores, with generous parking lots and loading docks, located hard by interstate exits.

And it has flourished primarily by sticking to low- and middle-income communities that responded eagerly to "everyday low prices" and didn't mind the middling quality and the unevenly staffed aisles.

After decades of impressive double-digit growth, however, Wal-Mart has pretty much saturated the rural and exurban communities where the model made sense. For the past few years, the only way it has been able to maintain even a semblance of the old growth rate has been a successful expansion into the grocery business along with a much-less successful foray into foreign markets. Meanwhile, at the edge of its core markets, Wal-Mart now faces increased competition from the likes of Target and Costco, which have been able to achieve national scale and clout in part by copying many of Wal-Mart's cost-saving efficiencies.

None of this has been lost on Wall Street, which has been marking down Wal-Mart shares since the end of 1999, after hitting a high of nearly $70. They closed Friday at $53.45.

Now it is that dilemma that has brought Wal-Mart to the gates of urban America -- a place of expensive land, crowded building lots, zoning restrictions, high wages, pesky unions and newspapers that understand that new retail stores don't create jobs and tax revenue, but just move them around. To get in, Wal-Mart will not only have to adjust to the geographic, political and economic realities, but adjust as well to the demands of consumers who value quality and selection as much as they do low prices.

All of this will require fundamental changes in the basic Wal-Mart model -- changes that in some cases are well under way.

You see it already in the number of new formats that Wal-Mart has rolled out. These include not only the traditional department store, the Sam's Club and the new superstore, but also the Neighborhood Markets and a slimmed-down superstore that, at 99,000 square feet, manages to get in under the wire of 100,000-square-foot zoning restrictions in many communities. Along with this added flexibility, however, has come the added cost of complexity, which is beginning to show up in less-aggressive price cutting and slower profit growth.

You see it, too, in Wal-Mart's campaign to improve its image as a responsible employer -- not only those TV ads featuring workers talking about their health insurance, but the announcement that executive bonuses will now be based, in part, on how well the company does in promoting women and minorities. Settlements of discrimination and wage-and-hour lawsuits can't be far behind.

Even suppliers are noticing a letup in the relentless pressure to cut prices every year after a number of them with strong brand equity concluded they could make more money selling fewer units to Wal-Mart's competitors.

The best way to encourage this kinder, gentler Wal-Mart is to lure it deeper into big new urban markets -- a twist on the old Trojan horse story. The reason companies behave differently in Washington than in Bentonville, Ark., isn't because they're run by nicer people but because the realities of the market leave them no choice.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

links Would Be Sufficient. We Can't See The Damn Discussion.

[hooligan]

links Would Be Sufficient. We Can't See The Damn Discussion.
what's there to discuss? it's like talking to some of my neo-con friends.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Oh please, if you don't have anything to say besides insulting policies and corporations which many people support by throwing political epithets ... why start a thread at all?

But I guess that's why you're conducting a "denial of service" attack on your own thread.

[hooligan]

Oh please, if you don't have anything to say besides insulting policies and corporations which many people support by throwing political epithets ... why start a thread at all?

But I guess that's why you're conducting a "denial of service" attack on your own thread.
no, those articles pretty much sum up why wal-mart isn't good for communities. not everything is about the money ali, it's about the people and making sure we have enough to live our lives. obviously walmart has done questionable things as a corporation ensuring their profit margin. so, i don't know about you, but i see this as a problem. oh well huh? as long as it's profitable. i guess.

[AliBabaIncorporated]

Well, the question isn't whether Wal-mart has done questionable things in pursuit of profit. We agree on that one. (Try not to have a heart attack.)

The question is whether the sum total of the damage all the questionable things they've done in pursuit of profit, MINUS the benefits they've brought to America as a whole (lower prices), is greater or less than the same for all those small employers your first article lionizes. What you may or may not realize is that small employers have a hell of a lot less transparency than large employers in their decision-making methods for the same kind of things Wal-mart is getting shit for (Mom and Pop fire a worker --- was it because she was pregnant, dating a black guy, or because they're struggling to get by and need to cut costs? They're not a corporation and don't have to release audited financial statements, so no one has a clue, and the answer can only be found in Mom and Pop's head. Also if Mom, Pop, and a few workers are the only ones in the whole shop, you have a lot lower likelyhood of getting witnesses). And they get investigated a lot less because they're small enough to fly under the radar.

[Craig]

We can keep Walmarts out of the neighborhoods by not shopping at them. I have plenty of friends that refuse to shop at Walmart. If other people want to shop at Walmart, then why should I be able to stop them. I may (or may not) agree with their business practices, but I'm not going to put my moral judgement over their right to try to get affordable goods, especially since many of the people shopping there are struggling to get by. Heck, I don't agree with the business practices of Microsoft, Google, etc. I don't like strip clubs, etc., but I am not going to go out of my way to try to shut them down.

Personally, I'm against the minimum wage. A miminum wage just puts an upward pressure on prices (well partly because America is dominated by greed) and a downward pressure on the relative purchasing power for people who save and those in non-minimum wage jobs. What's the point of raising the minimum wage when it just helps to erode the value of your current wages. People should strive to work in positions that are considered more valuable than minimum wage jobs. If they don't want to, well, I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to help them temporarily (until their slumlords see their wages are up and jack up their rents, etc. to a point where they are worse off than before the wage increase).

As far as drug tests, if you want the job bad enough then you'll place enough priority in making sure you try to keep the job. Personally, I don't like to shave everyday, I don't like to wear uncomfortable clothes, I don't like people at work supporting American foreign policy, institutional racism, etc. However, until I'm in a better position, I put up with it. I've grown fond of eating, having a place to sleep, etc.

[TyroneK(prettypretty)]

I'm having a hard time finding links to statistical proof of this, but there are arguments that Wal Mart increases crime rates in communities. I'm surprised that wasn't in any of the articles cut and pasted here.

I do know though that Wal Marts are constantly targets of lawsuits because of inadequate security and lighting in their enormous parking lots, creating vast unprotected spaces for criminals to linger and hurt customers and steal purchased merchandise. Count in the increase in crime that also occurs from economic downturn in places that often don't have alternative income-making venues and it seems to me that you have a decent argument (maybe not correct, but still decent) for not allowing a Wal Mart in your community.

So I don't think it's just fear of economic displacement or a stubborn refusal to submit to progress that drives these people to keep out the "big boxes."

If someone else can be a better Googler than me and find some more specific blurbs about the arguments linking WalMart to increases in crime, I'd really appreciate it. For all I know, they're bad arguments.

[SunWuKong]

In all seriousness, why do liberals hate wal-mart? Is it a class thing? Do they wanna prove themselves superior by shopping at stores which are more expensive and forcing everyone else to do the same?

i don't consider myself a liberal, but i don't like walmart-like stores either. they have a strategy of opening in a neighborhood, driving out small businesses, then closing that location down. they do this within a certain radius of a region, and then open a wal-mart superstore in the epicenter. i've seen this happen when i was living in Orlando. the argument of them providing cheaper goods to consumers to beat the competition would only work if they are not actually employing this strategy.

anyway, i don't have an opinion on the school drug testing issue. i do think it was a good idea not to raise minimum wage, but i am against Terminator's decision on the walmart issue.

however, while i think raising minimum wage would hurt small or medium-sized businesses, i don't think it would hurt big businesses like walmart. simply because big businesses tend to pay their executives many many times more than their minimum wage workers. minimum wage workers get paid $6.75 in California. that's $13,500 for the normal 2000-workhour year. how many millions of dollars are walmart executives getting paid? they could do without a few hundred thousand dollars here and there.

[ellsworth81]

"How walmart ruins communities." Sounds like unbiased, academic stuff to me.

Wonder why so many black consumers are in favor of Wal-mart. Oh yeah, I forgot, they've been tricked by the power structure into believing stuff that's against their own interest.

In all seriousness, why do liberals hate wal-mart? Is it a class thing? Do they wanna prove themselves superior by shopping at stores which are more expensive and forcing everyone else to do the same?

i always thought minorities shopped at walmart b/c it was all they could afford. the shit in there is seriously cheap.

if walmart is economicially more efficient as people claim it is, then i suppose i'm in favor of it. with that in mind, i guess minimum wage is also harmful economically, at least from everything i have read. then again, what would stop them from paying even lower wages?

[Yeahman]

Wow, I thought Arnold would be a terrible governor. I agree with him 100% on these issues. Well I don't know about the drug-tests.
Minimum wage is already $6.75 in Cali? Geez. Forget raising the minimum wage. There should work to lower it. Seriously, your Cali people are too spoiled. Complaining about a $6.75 minimum wage... sheesh.

The megastore bill would have required cities and counties to complete economic impact reports before ruling on proposals to build retail stores with more than 130,000 square feet and that devote more than 10 percent of their space to selling food. The reports would have included assessments of the stores' impact on other businesses, wages, public services and traffic.
Why not also make them get 2 teacher's recommendations and a physical?
130,000 square feet and more than 10% devoted to selling food? Can they make the requirements any more specific? I don't think the intended target corporation is obvious enough.

OK seriously, the traffic assessment I could understand since, ultimately the state will have to foot the bill for solving congestion problems. But everything else are just anti-business barriers. Actually that looks like what it was meant to do. They can't just outlaw Wal-Mart. So they erect these barriers and make it only apply to "retail stores with more than 130,000 square feet and that devote more than 10 percent of their space to selling food." And then they wonder why people don't want to do business in Cali anymore.

In all seriousness, why do liberals hate wal-mart? Is it a class thing? Do they wanna prove themselves superior by shopping at stores which are more expensive and forcing everyone else to do the same?
They don't like low prices and good value. They want us to pay more for our goods and services thinking that this will put more money in the pockets of workers, not realizing that it also means that the poor won't be able to afford as much. They blame Bush for shifting the tax burden to the poor and middle class when the liberals themselves advocate the same concept in the market economy.

[yoMAMA]

"compassionate conservatism" shows its true face.

Way to go, Arnold.

[Yeahman]

if walmart is economicially more efficient as people claim it is, then i suppose i'm in favor of it. with that in mind, i guess minimum wage is also harmful economically, at least from everything i have read. then again, what would stop them from paying even lower wages?
Nothing until it gets down to subsistance levels. The subsistance level is the minimum wage built-into capitalism. So we might not need a legally defined minimum wage at all. But it may still be a good idea in order to relief some of the burden of state social welfare programs which would have to increase as more people have less money. I think that at this time the federal MW of $5.15/hour is reasonable.

[SunWuKong]

They don't like low prices and good value. They want us to pay more for our goods and services thinking that this will put more money in the pockets of workers, not realizing that it also means that the poor won't be able to afford as much. They blame Bush for shifting the tax burden to the poor and middle class when the liberals themselves advocate the same concept in the market economy.

no, as i've said before in this same thread, they use questionable tactics to secure their market share. they open stores within a certain radius, drive out the smaller businesses, then close those locations and open a walmart superstore at the epicentre of the radius. i've personally seen this happen. it would only be fair competition if they keep selling the low-priced goods at the same locations they were in. but such is not the case. they don't do this because they actually can't keep selling at those low prices forever. sure, in several years maybe some of those small businesses would spring up again, but maybe not, and anyway they've competed unfairly to destroy other people's businesses.

again, i don't consider myself liberal or conservative, but businesses don't always win market share by providing the most cost-effective goods and services.

[Yeahman]

I admit that the questionable marketing tactic that you talk about would be a legitament concern. However, I don't think that's the main point of most people's opposition to Wal-Mart. I think that most opponents just think that Wal-Mart is bad because it takes away business from small businesses.

[SunWuKong]

I admit that the questionable marketing tactic that you talk about would be a legitament concern. However, I don't think that's the main point of most people's opposition to Wal-Mart. I think that most opponents just think that Wal-Mart is bad because it takes away business from small businesses.

well, while i do believe in the spirit of fair competition, there is concern in a business becoming too big, especially in small-town America. to say something like "if you don't like working for Walmart, work somewhere else" would be a terribly naive attitude. firstly, there isn't an infinite supply of jobs out there, secondly, many Walmart employees probably have to live paycheck-to-paycheck, such that they cannot go without a job for even a month. if X number of people were employed by Y number of businesses, then there's competitive hiring, where the businesses have to offer competitive wages and benefits to the employees. but when the Y number of businesses is small and it includes something like a Walmart that employs most of the X number of people, it can, for example, decrease wages and benefits and there are not enough other businesses or job openings for these people to go to for better jobs. the concept of competitive hiring is gone, and fair competition is no longer making people's lives better. the compensation that employees get are kept at a minimal as to pass government regulations. Walmart-like businesses destroying small businesses is a valid concern.

[Yeahman]

Wal-Mart can never be the only business in town. As large as it is, they don't do everything. There are lots of non-Wal-Mart jobs. McDonald's, the gas station, Best Buy, local restuarants, etc...
I don't see lower wages as a negative. Restricting access to health benefits is why I support universal healthcare.

[SunWuKong]

Wal-Mart can never be the only business in town. As large as it is, they don't do everything. There are lots of non-Wal-Mart jobs. McDonald's, the gas station, Best Buy, local restuarants, etc...
I don't see lower wages as a negative. Restricting access to health benefits is why I support universal healthcare.

i never said that Walmart would become the only business in town. what i wrote in the previous post only say that Walmart may be one of the largest employer, if not the largest employer, in a neighbhorhood or a small town.

there has never really been enough supply of minimum-wage jobs to meet the demand for them. when was the last time you hear someone say, "i've got an offer from Walmart, McDonald's, and Home Depot for around minimum wage, i have to decide which offer is the best." the fact is that no, there aren't lots of other jobs out there, especially when Walmart-sized stores are putting other businesses out of business. there is less competitive hiring, and people are pretty much stuck with whatever shitty job they can get.

[Yeahman]

when was the last time you hear someone say, "i've got an offer from Walmart, McDonald's, and Home Depot for around minimum wage, i have to decide which offer is the best."
That's not exactly something to be proud of. The fact is that there ARE lots of jobs out there, even if they aren't all that great.

[Mr.Lum]

They don't like low prices and good value

I just don't like scumy stores in my town. It has nothing to do with prices or "good value" (which I often do not find there). You often times have to pay for quality. Just cause it's cheap doesn't mean it's good. Walmarts tend to be nasty and dirty too. I've never been in one that either didn't smell funny or just was unkept.

[SunWuKong]

That's not exactly something to be proud of. The fact is that there ARE lots of jobs out there, even if they aren't all that great.

no, seriously, there really aren't, at least not at the level of minimum or about minimum wage. there's a reason why there always exists an unemployment rate, one which goes up when the economy is doing badly and which goes down when the economy is doing well. and regardless, the less number of businesses there is, the less competitive hiring there is.

[VV o n g B a]

In all seriousness, why do liberals hate wal-mart? Is it a class thing? Do they wanna prove themselves superior by shopping at stores which are more expensive and forcing everyone else to do the same?
i hate shopping at walmart. i don't hate the company itself. its the atmosphere and the lines and those damn babies.

i'll pay a premium of a few cents to shop at target where the store is cleaner and the lines are practically nonexistant (where i live anyways). and i sure as hell don't want others to shop where i shop. i hope only the minimum number of ppl required to keep the place open shop at target.